I  if  [J!  Si 

I   it  lit  ]j 


KS 


-HX 

304 

V28sE 


Vandervelds- 
Socialism 


versus  the 


Southern   Branch 
of  the 

University  of  California 

Los  Angeles 


W"  is  DUE 


This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last 
date  stamped  below 


Vi/»r  -  0  (352 

WAY  2     196^ 

OCT  2  4  1960 

WAR  1  3  1961 
IWCD 


APR  6-  1961 


SOUTI- 

UNIVERSI1 

L 

lUOS  A 


lOm-8,'32 


SOCIALISM 
VERSUS  THE  STATE 


BY 

EMILE  VANDERVELDE 

MINISTER  OF   STATE  I    MEMBER   OF  THE   BELGIAN    GOVERNMENT 

Translated  by  Charles  H.  Kerr 


CHICAGO 

CHARLES  H.  KERR  &  COMPANY 

CO-OPERATIVE 


3S/&B 


Copyright   1019 

By  Chaki.es  H.  Kerr  &  Company 

Authorized  Edition  for  all  English-Speaking  Countries 


30<V 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Preface  5 

Introduction 13 

1.  Reformist  Socialism  23 

2.  Revolutionary  Syndicalism 28 

3.  The  Social  Democracy  44 

PART  ONE 
The  Conquest  of  Political  Power 
Chapter    I.     The    Capitalist    Conquest    of   the 

Public  Powers 65 

1.  Action  Upon  the  Voters  67 

2.  Action  Upon  Those  Elected  85 

Chapter  II.   The  Bankruptcy  of  Parliamentarism  102 
Chapter  III.     Proletarian  Action  107 

1.  Resistance  to  Capitalism Ill 

2.  Pressure  From  Without   116 

3.  The  Formation  of  the  New  System 122 

4.  The  Proletarian   Conquest  of  Political 

Power 126 

PART  TWO 
The  Socialization  of  the  Means  of  Production 

Section  I.    Public  Corporations 150 

Section  II.    Autonomy  of  Public  Services 159 

Chapter  I.    Financial  Autonomy 161 


4  TABLE  OF   CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Chapter  II.    Administrative  Autonomy 167 

1.  The  Administration  of  Mines  in  Prussia...  168 

2.  The  State  Railways  170 

3.  The  Belgian  National  Railway  Project 177 

Chapter  III.    Autonomy  of  the  Working  Force.  .  181 

1.  Belgium 187 

2.  France 189 

3.  England 191 

4.  Summary  and  Conclusion  194 

Chapter  IV.    Socialism  and  State  Industries 205 

Chapter  V.    Socialism  and  Statism 220 


PREFACE 

This  book  was  at  the  point  of  completion  when 
the  war  broke  out.  I  carried  the  manuscript  to 
Anvers,  then  to  Ostend  and  to  Havre  One  of 
my  co-workers  found  it,  and  having  read  it, 
advised  me  to  publish  without  waiting  longer. 
On  reflection,  I  have  followed  this  advice :  the 
problems  which  concerned  me  in  1914  have  not 
ceased  to  be  problems.  On  the  contrary,  they 
will  assert  themselves  after  peace  comes,  with  a 
force  multiplied  a  hundred-fold  by  the  crushing 
financial  burdens  that  the  war  will  leave  behind  it. 

My  thesis  was,  in  substance,  that  we  should 
guard  against  confusing  Socialism  with  Statism ; 
that  the  creation  of  government  monopolies  and 
State  industries  may  often  be  due  to  causes,  of  a 
technical  or  fiscal  order,  which  have  nothing  to 
do  with  labor  and  socialist  demands ;  that  the 
formidable  growth  of  war  and  naval  budgets  is 
perhaps  the  principal  factor  in  this  development 
of  statism ;  that  this  growing  statization  would 
be  of  a  nature  to  involve  the  gravest  disadvan- 
tages, if  it  were  not  accompanied  by  correspond- 
ing changes  in  the  political  organization  of  the 

5 


6  PREFACE 

State  and  in  the  social  organization  of  industries. 

Now  if  this  was  true  before  the  war,  it  is  still 
more  true  at  present. 

The  whirlpool  of  public  debt  grows  deeper 
day  by  day.  The  after-war  finances  will  require 
in  all  countries  the  creation  of  new  state  monop- 
olies. The  actual  needs  of  the  conflict  have  placed 
most  of  the  principal  industries  under  control  of 
the  States.  And  in  the  public  mind,  it  seems  that 
this  governmental  seizure  of  the  means  of  pro- 
duction and  exchange  appears  more  than  ever 
like  an  application  and  realization  of  socialist 
principles. 

Thus,  in  May,  1916,  at  the  moment  when  the 
"economic  dictatorship"  was  inaugurated  in  Ger- 
many by  Batocki,  the  predecessor  of  Michaelis, 
one  might  have  read  in  the  Gazette  de  Lausanne 
the  following  article : 

"The  economic  dictatorship  is  in  itself  an 
event  of  enormous  import  from  the  social  point 
of  view.  It  marks  the  culmination  of  a  system 
of  State  socialism  toward  which  the  Empire  has 
progressed  gradually  and  without  check  since  the 
beginning  of  the  war.  Industrial  organization 
for  war,  followed  by  the  creation  of  all  the 
societies  for  the  purchase  and  distribution  of 
commodities  imagined  by  Dr.  Delbrueck, — these 
have  been   stages  in   this   progress   toward   the 


PREFACE  / 

realization  of  the  dream  of  Karl  Marx,  Finally, 
the  economic  dictatorship,  that  is,  the  distribution 
of  food  for  all  under  the  guardianship  of  the 
State,  marks  the  final  point.  It  is  absolute 
Statism. 

"And  what  is  most  remarkable  is  that  the 
complete  overthrow  of  a  capitalist  organization 
has  been  realized  in  a  few  months,  by  virtue  of 
the  common  will,  without  discussions,  without 
recourse  to  the  luminaries  of  Parliament  The 
Germans  are  all  Socialists  now.  Liebknecht  alone 
is  a  Socialist  no  longer.  And  that  is  why  he  is  in 
prison ! 

"The  import  of  this  concluding  experience  will 
be  tremendous  in  the  future.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
the  theories  which  were  called  Utopian  have  fur- 
nished the  leaven  which  has  saved  the  Empire 
from  an  economic  catastrophe,  and  their  applica- 
tion, with  the  Germans'  well-known  spirit  of 
organization,  will  not  fail  to  be  regarded  by 
all  economists  as  a  precious  foundation  for  a 
financial  structure. 

"Saved  at  first  by  stocks  of  goods  whose  exist- 
ence no  one,  not  even  in  Germany,  suspected 
(every  intense  economic  organization,  in  reality, 
functions  only  through  abundant  stocks)  the 
Empire  will  owe  its  economic  safety  to  the  appli- 
cation of  socialist  theories." 


8  PREFACE 

However  interesting  this  homage  to  socialism 
by  a  newspaper  which  has  never  been  regarded 
as  favorable  to  socialist  theories,  we  could  not 
subscribe  to  it  without  many  and  various  reserva- 
tions. 

True,  such  facts  as  the  "economic  dictator- 
ship," the  requisition  of  war  industries,  the 
extension  of  State  control  to  the  principal 
branches  of  social  activity,  furnish  valuable  argu- 
ments to  the  advocates  of  industrial  socialization ; 
but  between  this  self-styled  socialism,  this  war 
socialism,  and  real  socialism,  there  is  all  the 
difference  that  exists  between  an  authoritarian 
organization  and  a  democratic  organization  of 
the  life  of  the  members  of  society. 

All  that  can  be  said  is  that  on  the  day  when  it 
was  necessary  to  carry  national  energies  to  the 
maximum,  the  system  of  private  initiative  gave 
way  to  a  system  of  co-ordination  of  social  forces, 
and  that  henceforth  it  may  be  foreseen  that  on 
the  day  after  the  war,  for  financial  reasons,  the 
number  of  State  monopolies  will  increase  rather 
than  diminish. 

Try  to  imagine,  indeed,  what  the  budgets  of  all 
the  belligerent  States  will  be  during  the  coming 
years. 

In  an  article  in  the  Neues  Wiener  Tageblatt  of 
August  4,   1917,   Dr.   E.   L.   summarizes  in  the 


PREFACE  y 

following  table  the  present  financial  situation  of 

the  principal  European  States : 

Debts  of  the  Belligerent  Nations  of  Europe 

Quadruple  Alliance  and  Allies 

July  31, 1914  July  31, 1917 

(in  millions  of  crowns) 

England 15,624  83,424 

France 32,787  87,169 

Russia 25,731  96,000 

Italy 15,586  38,051 

Roumania 1,715  2,715 

Belgium 3,734  ? 

Serbia 900  ? 

Portugal 3,833  ? 

Central  Powers  and  Allies 

Germany 5,910  74,510 

Austria-Hungary 12,954  47,454 

Bulgaria 1,029  5,029 

Turkey 4,180  9,180 

These  figures,  naturally,  have  only  a  relative 
value.  They  do  not,  for  example,  take  account 
of  the  fact  that  the  Imperial  debts  of  Germany 
and  Austria-Hungary  represent  but  a  minor  part 
of  their  real  debt.  But  the  figures  suffice  to  show 
this  undeniable  fact,  that  to  cover  the  interest  on 
these  gigantic  loans,  it  will  be  necessary  to  find 
fiscal  resources  that  taxes  alone  will  surely  not  be 
enough  to  furnish. 

In  an  important  pamphlet  by  Edgar  Jaffe, 
"Volkswirtschaft  und  Krieg,"  '  issued  in  1915,  the 

1  Tubingen,  Mohr,  1915.     See  especially  pages  6,  24,  25,  26. 


10  PREFACE 

author  already  insisted  on  this  inevitable  conse- 
quence of  a  financial  effort  which  far  surpasses 
all  that  the  boldest  minds  would  have  dared  con- 
ceive at  the  outbreak  of  hostilities. 

Proud  as  was  the  strength  of  Germany,  Jaffe 
labored  under  no  illusions  as  to  the  future,  and 
recognized  that  the  difficulties  his  country  would 
.  have  to  overcome  on  the  commercial  and  indus- 
trial field  would  be  as  nothing  to  those  it  would 
meet  on  the  financial  field. 

Now,  he  adds,  we  can  not  expect  everything 
from  a  direct  tax.  It  will  be  necessary  to  con- 
sider the  national  interest  alone  and  not  attempt 
to  satisfy  private  interests.  It  will  be  necessary 
to  obtain  resources  by  establishing  State  monop- 
olies. From  experiences  gathered  before  the  war, 
postoffice,  Imperial  Bank,  railroads,  co-operatives 
of  consumption,  etc.,  it  may  be  concluded  that 
monopolies  are  possible  and  lucrative  The  State 
would  retain  the  total  of  the  profits.  -Commerce 
in  cereals,  wool,  copper,  etc.,  would  be  financed 
by  public  or  semi-official  organizations.  The 
State  would  keep  a  monopoly  of  the  electrical 
industry  and  of  electric  power. 

That  other  countries,  foremost  among  them 
Great  Britain,  are  from  now  on  as  boldly  or  more 
boldly  than  Germany  on  the  road  toward  "statiza- 
tion"  is  doubted  by  no  one,  and  least  of  all  by  the 


PREFACE  1 1 

thousands  who  are  moved  by  this  tendency  to  the 
most  resistance  and  apprehension. 

Certainly,  a  part  of  the  war  collectivism  will 
disappear  with  the  war.  But,  apart  from  the 
State  monopolies  which  will  be  maintained,  others 
must  be  created.  State  control  will  be  established 
more  and  more  over  the  combines,  the  pools  and 
the  trusts  of  big  business.  Industries  operated 
by  State  bureaux  will  grow  in  number.  And  by 
the  fact  of  their  development,  more  imperiously 
than  ever  will  arise  the  problems  which  we  have 
studied  in  this  book  and  which  are  summed  up 
in  its  title :  Socialism  Versus  the  State,  that  is  to 
say  the  substitution  of  Socialism,  founded  on  the 
management,  the  administration  of  things,  for 
Statism,  founded  on  authority,  on  the  government 
of  men. 

The  war  will  have  as  its  inevitable  consequence 
an  inordinate  increase  in  the  domain  of  Statism. 
But  this  very  development  will  at  the  same  time 
render  both  easier  and  more  necessary  the  de- 
velopment of  its  opposite,  Socialism. 

E  V. 


INTRODUCTION 

Every  one  knows,  or  at  least  has  heard  of, 
Spencer's  little  book  "The  Man  versus  the  State." 

I  had  in  mind  this  title,  invented  to  fight 
Socialism,  when  I  called  these  talks  "Socialism 
versus  the  State." 

At  this  time  when,  by  the  fact  of  war  or  of 
the  financial  burdens  resulting  from  war,  the 
State  is  grasping  more  and  more  of  the  great 
industries,  it  is  more  important  than  ever  to  react 
against  the  too  general  tendency,  not  escaped  by 
some  Socialists,  to  confuse  socialism  with  statism, 
to  see  in  the  progress  of  s^atization  so  many 
partial  victories  of  collectivism,  to  imagine  that 
to  assure  the  future  of  socialism  it  will  suffice 
to  push  to  their  final  consequences  the  develop- 
ment of  municipal  ownership  and  of  State 
monopolies. 

It  is  this  manner  of  observing,  too  prevalent, 
which  in  many  minds  creates  deep-seated  preju- 
dices against  the  socialist  ideal. 

How  many  people,  for  example,  never  having 
made  any  thorough  study  of  socialism,  take  for  a 
portrait   of   socialism   this   caricature   in    which 

13 


¥ 


14  INTRODUCTION 

Flaubert   describes   the   psychology   of    Senecal, 
revolutionary    propagandist    and    future    police 

spy : 

He  had  built  up  an  ideal  of  virtuous  democracy 
having  the  double  aspect  of  a  small  farm  and  a 
spinning-mill,  a  sort  of  American  Sparta  .where  the 
individual  existed  merely  to  serve  a  society  more  omnip- 
otent, absolute,  infallible  and  divine  than  the  great 
Lamas  and  the  Nebuchadnezzars. 

Even  in  the  scientific  world,  moreover,  such 
ideas  are  still  in  repute.  In  proof  of  this,  one 
only  need  open  the  treatise  on  political  economy 
by  Leroy-Beaulieu ;  he  will  find  the  following 
definition  of  socialism: 

A  system  which  resorts  to  State  compulsion,  com- 
pulsion by  regulation  or  compulsion^  by  taxation,  to 
introduce  among  men  a  less  inequality  of  conditions 
than  that  which  is  produced  spontaneously  under  the 
regime  of  pure  freedom  of  contract. 

Again,  he  says: 

Moreover  the  isolated  individual  and  family  today 
become  parts  of  a  multitude  of  voluntary  and  free 
combinations:  different  associations  with  different  ob- 
jects, intellectual,  moral,  material,  pecuniary. 

In  a  socialist  system  where  the  State  would  provide 
for  all  production,  would  take  it  upon  itself  to  assuage 
all  miseries  and  to  enlighten  all  men,  the  individual 
would  no  longer  have  to  enter  into  any  of  these 
beneficent  and  varied  relations.  Emancipated  from 
particular  duties  to  others,  deprived  of  all  initiative  in 
presence  of  the  all-powerful  and  all-providing  State, 
he  would  be,  more  than  today,  a  grain  of  human  dust 

Thus  for  bourgeois  political  economy,  socialism 
and  statism  are  almost  synonymous :  socialism  is 


INTRODUCTION 


15 


statism  ending  in  the  absorption  by  the  State,  not 
only  of  every  individuality,  but  also  of  every 
autonomous  or  independent  collectivity. 

But  if  we  now  address  ourselves  to  socialists, 
and  especially  to  the  two  theorists,  Engels  and 
Marx,  who  have  exercised  a  preponderant  influ- 
ence on  the  doctrinal  development  of  contempo- 
rary socialism,  on  the  elaboration  of  the  declara- 
tions of  principles  and  program  of  the  parties 
affiliated  with  the  International,  the  response  will 
be  altogether  different. 

For  the  Marxists,  in  fact,  socialism,  far  from 
being  confused  with  statism,  is  its  opposite.  Jts 
final  aim  is  not  the  omnipotence  of  the  State,  but 
on  the  contrary  its  abolition. 

In  his  book  "The  Origin  of  the  Family,  Private 
Property  and  the  State,"  published  in  1884,  where 
Engels,  doing  what  death  had  prevented  Marx 
himself  from  doing,  sums  up  in  a  popular  treatise 
the  results  of  their  common  researches,  he  says : 

The  State,  then,  did  not  exist  from  all  eternity. 
There  have  been  societies  without  it,  that  had  no  idea 
of  any  State  or  public  power.  At  a  certain  stage  of 
economic  development,  which  was  of  necessity  accom- 
panied by  a  division  of  society  into  classes,  the  State 
became  the  inevitable  result  of  this  division.  We  are 
now  rapidly  approaching  a  stage  of  evolution  in  produc- 
tion, in  which  the  existence  of  classes  has  not  only 
ceased  to  be  a  necessity,  but  becomes  a  positive  fetter 
on  production.    Hence  these  classes  must  fall  as  inevit- 


16  INTRODUCTION 

ably  as  they  once  rose.  The  State  must  irrevocably  fall 
with  them.  The  society  that  is  to  reorganize  production 
on  the  basis  of  a  free  and  equal  association  of  the 
producers,  will  transfer  the  machinery  of  State  where 
it  will  then  belong:  into  the  Museum  of  Antiquities  by 
the  side  of  the  spinning  wheel  and  the  bronze  ax. 

The  clearness  of  this  passage  leaves  nothing  to 
be  desired :  socialism,  as  the  masters  of  the  theory 
explain  it,  is  then  not  statist,  but  on  the  contrary, 
anti-statist. 

How  comes  it,  then,  that  the  popular  notion 
of  socialism  could  be  the  exact  opposite  of  what 
its  principal  theorists  teach? 

To  understand  this,  it  is  indispensable  to  carry 
to  its  completion  the  thought  of  Marx  and  Engels 
by  comparing  the  text  just  quoted  with  other 
passages  from  their  writings,  which  relate  not 
to  the  final  goal  of  socialism,  but  to  the  means 
for  arriving  at  that  goal.  It  will  then  be  seen 
that  if  they  desire,  when  socialism  shall  have 
triumphed,  to  "transfer  the  machinery  of  State 
to  the  Museum  of  Antiquities."  they  wish  that 
the  workers  grasp  this  machine,  and  before  dis- 
carding it,  make  it  operate  to  their  profit. 

This  is  found  clearly  explained  in  the  follow- 
ing passages  of  the  Communist  Manifesto: 

The  immediate  aim  of  the  Communists  (we  should 
say  today  Marxians)  is  the  same  as  that  of  all  the 
other  proletarian  parties;  formation  of  the  proletariat 
into  a  class,  overthrow  of  the  bourgeois  supremacy, 


A 

INTRODUCTION  17 

conquest  of  political  power  by  the  proletariat.  (Page 
30,  Kerr  edition.) 

And  again  farther  on : 

We  have  seen  above,  that  the  first  step  in  the  revolu- 
tion by  the  working  class,  is  to  raise  the  proletariat  to 
the  position  of  ruling  class,  to  win  the  battle  of 
democracy. 

The  proletariat  will  use  its  political  supremacy,  to 
wrest,  by  degrees,  all  capital  from  the  ^bourgeoisie,  to 
centralize  all  instruments  of  production  ijn  the  handsof 
the  State,  i.  e.,  of  the  proletariat  organized  as  the  ruling 
class;  and  to  increase  the  total  of  productive  forces  as 
rapidly  as  possible. 

Of  course,  in  the  beginning,  this  cannot  be  effected 
except  by  means  of  despotic  inroads  on  the  rights  of 
property,  and  on  the  conditions  of  bourgeois  produc- 
tion; by  means  of  measures,  therefore,  which  appear 
economically  insufficient  and  untenable,  but  which,  in  the 
course  of  the  movement,  outstrip  themselves,  necessitate 
further  inroads  upon  the  old  social  order,  and  are 
unavoidable  as  a  means  of  entirely  revolutionizing  the 
mode  of  production. 

These  measures  will  of  course  be  different  in  different 
countries. 

Nevertheless  in  the  most  advanced  countries  the 
following  will  be  pretty  generally  applicable : 

1.  Abolition  of  property  in  land  and  application  of 
all  rents  of  land  to  public  purposes. 

2.  A  heavy  progressive  or  graduated  income  tax. 

3.  Abolition  of  all  right  of  inheritance. 

4.  Confiscation  of  the  property  of  all  emigrants  and 
rebels. 

5.  Centralization  of  credit  in  the  hands  of  the  State, 
by  means  of  a  national  bank  with  State  capital  and  an 
exclusive  monopoly. 

6.  Centralization  of  the  means  of  communication  and 
transport  in  the  hands  of  the  State. 

7.  Extension  of  factories  and  instruments  of  produc- 
tion owned  by  the  State;  the  bringing  into  cultivation 


18  INTRODUCTION 

of  waste  lands,  and  the  improvement  of  the  soil  gen- 
erally in  accordance  with  a  common  plan. 

8.  Equal  liability  of  all  to  labor.  Establishment  of 
industrial  armies,  especially  for  agriculture. 

9.  Combination  of  agriculture  with  manufacturing 
industries ;  gradual  abolition  of  the  distinction  between 
town  and  country,  by  a  more  equable  distribution  of 
population  over  the  country. 

10.  Free  education  for  all  children  in  public  schools. 
Abolition  of  children's  factory  labor  in  its  present  form. 
Combination  of  education  with  industrial  production, 
etc.,  etc. 

When,  in  the  course  of  development,  class  distinctions 
have  disappeared,  and  all  production  has  been  concen- 
trated in  the  hands  of  a  vast  association  of  the  whole 
nation,  the  public  power  will  lose  its  political  character. 
Political  power,  properly  so  called,  is  merely  the  organ- 
ized power  of  one  class  for  oppressing  another.  If  the 
proletariat  during  its  contest  with  the  bourgeoisie  is 
compelled,  by  the  force  of  circumstances,  to  organize 
itself  as  a  class,  if,  by  means  of  a  revolution,  it  makes 
itself  the  ruling  class,  and,  as  such,  sweeps  away  by 
force  the  old  conditions  of  production,  then  it  will, 
along  with  these  conditions,  have  swept  away  the  con- 
ditions  for  the  existence  of  class  antagonisms,  and  of 
classes  generally,  and  will  thereby  have  abolished  its 
own  supremacy  as  a  class. 

In  place  of  the  old  bourgeois  society,  with  its  classes 
and  class  antagonisms,  we  shall  have  an  association,  in 
which  the  free  development  of  each  is  the  condition  for 
the  free  development  of  all.     (Kerr  edition,  pp.  40-42.) 

We  are  now  in  a  position  to  understand  how 
socialism  may  be  considered  as  statist  or  anti- 
statist,  according  to  whether  one  has  in  view  its 
immediate  goal  or  its  final  goal.  The  thought  of 
Marx  and  Engels  may  be  summed  up  as  follows : 


INTRODUCTION  19 

1.  The  State,  taken  in  the  sense  of  State- 
power,  of  State-government,  of  the  State  as 
organ  of  authority, — is  a  product  of  society 
arrived  at  a  definite  degree  of  development.  "In 
order  that  these  contradictions,  these  classes  with 
conflicting  economic  interests,  may  not  annihilate 
themselves  and  society  in  a  useless  struggle,  a 
power  becomes  necessary  that  stands  apparently 
above  society  and  has  the  function  of  keeping 
down  the  conflicts  and  maintaining  'order.'  And 
this  power,  this  outgrowth  of  society,  but  assum- 
ing supremacy  over  it  and  becoming  more  and 
more  divorced  from  it,  is  the  State."  (Origin  of 
the  Family,  p.  206.) 

2.  The  State,  born  of  the  need  for  restraining 
class  antagonisms,  but  also  born  in  the  midst  of 
the  class  struggle,  is,  as  a  rule,  the  State  of  the 
most  powerful  class,  of  that  one  which  rules 
economically,  and  which,  by  means  of  the  State, 
becomes  also  the  preponderant  class  from  the 
political  point  of  view. 

3.  The  immediate  aim  of  the  proletarian  revo- 
lution is  the  conquest  of  the  State,  the  capture  of 
political  power. 

4.  The  proletariat  will  use  this  political  su- 
premacy to  wrest  little  by  little  from  the  bour- 
geoisie all  the  capital,  to  centralize  in  the  hands 
of  the   State,  that  is  to  say  of  the  proletariat 


*) 


20  INTRODUCTION 

constituted  as  a  directing  class,  the  instruments 
of  production.     (Communist  Manifesto.) 

5.  As  it  will  thus  have  suppressed  the  very 
conditions  which  lead  to  class  antagonisms,  the 
existence  of  classes,  it  will  take  away  from  its 
own  supremacy  the  character  of  class  supremacy : 
the  State,  as  organ  of  authority,  may  disappear; 
for  the  old  capitalist  society  with  its  classes  and 
its  class  antagonisms  will  be  substituted  an  asso- 
ciation in  which  the  free  development  of  each 
will  be  the  condition  for  the  free  development 
of  all. 

It  will  be  seen  that,  in  this  conception,  the 
word  "State"  is  employed  stricto  scnsu:  the  ques- 
tion is  not  of  the  administration  of  things,  but  of 
the  government  of  men ;  not  of  the  State  as  an 
organ  of  management,  but  solely  of  the  State  as 
an  organ  of  authority. 

This  is  the  State  which  we  seek  to  conquer  in 
order  to  abolish  it,  following  the  clear  formula 
which  Kautsky  gives  in  his  commentary  on  the 
Erfurt  Program : 

"Democracy  would  have  the  working  classes 
conquer  political  power,  in  order,  by  aid  of  it,  to 
transform  the  State  into  a  great  economic  co- 
operative." 

The  ideas  of  Marx  and  Engels  on  the  conquest 
of  political  power  re-appear  today  with  more  or 


INTRODUCTION  21 

less  clearness  and  precision  in  the  programs  of 
all  the  parties  affiliated  with  the  International. 

Moreover,  the  International  admitted  to  its 
congresses,  according  to  the  decisions  taken  at  the 
Congress  of  London  (1896)  and  Paris  (1900) 
only  associations  and  labor  organizations  answer- 
ing to  the  following  conditions: 

1.  All  associations  which  adhere  to  the  essen- 
tial principles  of  socialism:  centralization  of  the 
means  of  production  and  exchange ;  union  and 
international  action  of  the  workers ;  socialist  con- 
quest of  the  public  powers  by  the  proletariat 
organized  as  a  class  party. 

2.  All  labor  organizations  which,  placing 
themselves  on  the  field  of  the  class  struggle  and 
recognizing  in  their  declarations  the  necessity  of 
political  action,  namely  legislative  and  parliamen- 
tary, do  not  participate  directly  in  the  political 
movement. 

These  decisions  at  London  and  Paris  had  for 
their  aim  and  their  result  the  exclusion,  on  the 
right  wing  and  on  the  left  wing,  of  associations 
or  organizations  which,  while  taking  the  name  of 
socialism,  did  not  accept  the  fundamental  ideas 
which  have  just  been  explained  on  the  subject  of 
the  conquest  of  the  State,  of  political  power,  by 
the  proletariat  organized  as  a  class  party. 

On  one  side  there  were,  in  France,  the  Inde- 


t 


22  INTRODUCTION 

pendent  Socialists,  in  Italy,  the  "Reformists  of 
the  Right,"  in  England  the  "Labor  "Men."  liberals, 
like  John  Burns,  who,  while  declaring  for  the 
socialization  or  at  least  statization  and  municipal- 
ization of  certain  means  of  production  and  ex- 
change, opposed,  either  in  theory  or  in  practice, 
the  collaboration  of  the  working  classes  in  the 
class  struggle. 

On  the  other  side  there  were  the  anarchists, 
the  libertarians,  the  anti-parliamentary  syndical- 
ists who,  while  placing  themselves  on  the  field 
of  the  class  struggle,  and  striving  for  the  social- 
ization of  the  means  of  production  and  exchange, 
did  not  recognize  the  necessity  of  political  action, 
of  the  "socialist  conquest  of  the  public  powers 
by  the  proletariat  organized  as  a  class  party." 

There  were,  in  short,  before  the  war.  three 
principal  tendencies  in  the  labor  movement:  re- 
formist  socialism,  revolutionary  syndicalism  and 
social  democracy. 

These  three  tendencies,  from  the  theoretical 
point  of  view,  are  connected  more  or  less  with 
Marx  and  Engels,  but  the  first  two  are  deviations 
which  lead,  on  one  side  to  a  sort  of  socialist 
radicalism  and  on  the  other  side  to  anarchism; 
the  third,  on  the  contrary,  is  a  development  of 
the  Marxian  thought,  and  at  the  same  time  an 
adaptation  of  it  to  the  modifications  which  half 


INTRODUCTION  23 

a  century  has  produced  in  the  social  environment. 

We  propose  to  characterize  these  three  tend- 
encies, especially  from  the  standpoint  of  their 
conception  of  the  role  and  the  nature  of  the 
State. 

I.     Reformist  Socialism 

Inside  the  organization  of  the  labor  and  social- 
ist International  as  it  existed  on  the  eve  of  the 
war,  were  found  groups  like  the  "Reformists  of 
the  Left"  in  Italy,  the  "Revolutionists"  in  Ger- 
many, the  "Fabians"  in  England,  the  right  wing 
of  the  unified  socialist  party  in  France,  which 
were  connected,  more  or  less,  with  reformist 
socialism. 

But  among  the  individuals  belonging  to  these 
various  groups  and  factions,  or  among  these 
groups  and  factions  themselves,  there  is  such  a 
diversity  of  shadings  that  any  attempt  to  char- 
acterize their  common  ideas  would  inevitably 
raise  numerous  objections  on  their  part. 

In  France,  for  example,  the  most  reformist 
among  the  members  of  the  unified  socialist  party 
might  and  even  ought  to  protest  against  this 
epithet  of  reformists,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the 
common  declaration  which  stands  as  the  basis  of 
the  Socialist  Unity  asserts  that  "by  its  aim,  its 
ideal,  the  methods  it  employs,  the  socialist  party, 
while  pursuing  the  realization  of  immediate  re- 


24  INTRODUCTION 

forms  demanded  by  the  working  class,  is  not  a 
party  of  reforms,  but  a  party  of  the  class  struggle 
and  revolution." 

To  find  reformist  socialism  one  must  either  go 
beyond  the  frontier  of  the  party,  or  else  revert  to 
an  epoch  preceding  the  Unity  (of  French  social- 
ists), to  the  time  when,  in  his  celebrated  speech 
at  Saint-Mande,  Alexandre  Millerand  formulated 
in  these  terms  the  three  essential  points,  "neces- 
sary and  sufficient"  according  to  him,  to  char- 
acterize a  socialist  program: 

1.  State  intervention  to  transfer  from  the  capitalist 
domain  to  the  national  domain  the  various  categories  of 
means  of  production  and  exchange,  as  fast  as  they 
become  ripe  for  social  appropriation. 

2.  Conquest  of  the  public  powers  by  universal 
suffrage. 

3.  International  alliance  of  the  workers. 

With  a  little  less  precision  or  inclusiveness  in 
terms,  these  "three  essential  points"  correspond, 
in  short,  to  the  "essential  principles  of  socialism" 
to  which  one  must  adhere  in  order  to  be  admitted 
into  the  congresses  of  the  International. 

But  while  affirming  the  need  of  the  interna- 
tional alliance  of  the  workers,  Millerand  protested 
his  patriotism  in  terms  which  already  seemed  to 
announce  his  future  nationalism,  and  on  the  other 
hand,  upon  the  two  other  essential  points,  he  de- 
veloped ideas  very  different  from  those  explained 


INTRODUCTION 


25 


in  the  Communist  Manifesto  or  the  other  writings 
of  Marx  and  Engels. 

i.     Social  Appropriation 
Here,  to  start  with,  is  Millerand's  idea  of  col- 
lectivism : 

He  is  not  a  socialist,  in  my  opinion,  who  does  not 
accept  the  necessary  and  progressive  substitution  of 
social  property  for  capitalist  property. 

That  is  to  say  that  a  socialist  would  not  limit  his 
action  to  those  three  categories  of  production  and 
exchange  which  may  be  called  classic:  credit  or  bank- 
ing, railway  transportation  and  mining. 

Thus,  outside  of  these,  take  an  example  about  which 
there  can  be  no  question,  an  industry  which  is  incon- 
testably  ripe  for  social  appropriation  at  the  present 
time,  because,  monopolized  in  a  few  hands,  returning 
enormous  profits  to  its  exploiters,  it  is  altogether  suited 
to  furnish  a  fertile  field  for  social  exploitation.  I  refer 
to  the  sugar  refineries. 

That  is  one  example,  and  only  an  example:  but  is 
there  in  truth  any  great  novelty  in  this  national  admin- 
istration which  tomorrow  shall  restore  to  all  the  profit 
unduly  monopolized  by  a  few ;  that  already  ...  by 
assuming  control  of  water  works,  electric  power,  the 
local  transportation  systems,  and  the  service  in  common 
of  farm  machinery,  a  number  of  small  collectivities, 
urban  and  rural,  have  in  their  sphere  substituted  social 
property  for  capitalist  property?1 

It  will  be  seen  that  in  M.  Millerand's  concep- 
tion, the  substitution  of  social  property  for  capi- 
talist property  was,  in  reality,  the  establishment 
of  a  certain  number  of  government  bureaux,  the 

1  Le  Socialisme  r^formiste,  p.  27. 


26  INTRODUCTION 

statization  or  municipalization  of  a  few  which 
already,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  constituted 
monopolies. 

In  the  quotation  we  have  just  made  from  his 
speech,  we  find  in  substance  the  theory  of  the 
"socialization  of  monopolies"  which  Benoit  Malon 
had  set  forth  in  his  book  on  "Integral  Socialism," 
the  second  volume  of  which  appeared  in  1891. 

Reforms  of  this  kind,  moreover,  are  merely 
the  realization,  partial  at  least,  of  the  program 
of  immediate  action  which  Marx  and  Engels  were 
already  developing  in  1848. 

But  the  authors  of  the  Manifesto  saw  in  this 
program  only  the  starting  point  for  more  radi- 
cal transformations.  Measures  will  have  to  be 
taken,  they  said  (Manifesto,  p.  41),  "which  ap- 
pear economically  insufficient  and  untenable,  but 
which  in  the  course  of  the  movement  outstrip 
themselves,  necessitate  further  inroads  upon  the 
old  social  order,  and  are  unavoidable  as  a  means 
,of  entirely  revolutionizing  the  mode  of  produc- 
tion." 

For  Malon  and  Millerand,  on  the  contrary,  the 
transformation  of  private  monopolies  into  pro- 
ductive services  constitutes  not  a  means,  but  an 
end.  They  see  in  it  nothing  less  than  the  culmi- 
nation of  socialist  effort  so  far  as  property  is 
concerned. 


INTRODUCTION  27 

2.     Conquest  of  Public  Powers 

For  Marx  and  Engels,  the  measures  of  which 
we  have  just  spoken  were  to  be  taken  by  the 
proletariat,  having  become  a  ruling  class,  after 
conquering  the  public  power  (Manifesto,  p.  41). 

For  Malon  and  Millerand,  on  the  contrary,  the 
socialization  of  monopolies  can  and  must  take 
place  beginning  now;  it  must  be  accomplished 
gradually,  progressively,  by  way  of  purchase,  as 
must  also  be  effected  gradually,  progressively  the 
conquest  of  public  powers  through  universal 
suffrage. 

That  is  what  Millerand,  in  his  speech  at  Saint- 
Mande,  affirmed  in  the  most  categorical  terms, 
protesting  energetically  against  the  "ridiculous 
reproach"  of  expecting  the  triumph  of  his  ideas 
from  violent  revolution : 

"Resort  to  force,  and  for  whom,  and  against  whom? 
Republicans  before  all  else,  we  do  not  entertain  the 
crazy  idea  of  appealing  to  the  illusory  prestige  of  a 
pretender  or  the  sabre  of  a  dictator  to  make  our  doc- 
trine triumph.  .  .  .  No,  to  realize  immediate  re- 
forms, capable  of  alleviating  the  lot  of  the  working 
class  and  thus  making  it  more  fit  to  conquer  its  own 
emancipation,  to  begin,  under  conditions  determined  by 
the  nature  of  things,  the  socialization  of  the  means  of 
production,  it  is  necessary  and  sufficient  for  the  socialist 
party  to  pursue  through  universal  suffrage  the  conquest 
of  the  public  powers.1 


1  Le  Socialisme  r6f ormiste  francais,  p.  32. 


28  INTRODUCTION 

The  socialism  thus  understood  is  evidently  a 
State  socialism,  answering  to  the  general  defini- 
tion of  socialism  given  by  Leroy-Beaulieu.  It 
strives  to  conquer  the  State,  not  to  abolish  it,  but 
on  the  contrary  to  extend  its  domain,  entrust  new 
funcions  to  it,  so  as  to  assure  its  grasp  on  all 
monopolies,  natural  or  artificial. 

2.     Revolutionary  Syndicalism 

The  whole  doctrine  of  revolutionary  syndical- 
ism will  be  found  in  embryo  in  the  article  on 
the  new  society  which  Sorel  published,  in  1898, 
under  the  title  "The  Socialist  Future  of  the  Syn- 
dicats"   (industrial  unions). 

Before  this,  it  should  be  understood,  there  were 
in  France  syndicalists  more  or  less  hostile  to 
parliamentary  action,  and  who  advocated,  in  op- 
position to  the  militants  of  the  Parti  Ouvrier, 
founded  by  Guesde  and  La f argue,  theories  or 
tactics  which  connected  them,  consciously  or  un- 
consciously, with  Proudhon  or  Bakounin.1 

But  Sorel's  originality  was  in  representing  syn- 
dicalism as  a  logical  deduction  from  the  Marxian 
conception  itself.  His  conclusion  on  this  point  is 
worth  quoting  entire : 

This  study  furnishes  us  with  a  beautiful  illustration 
of  the  doctrines  of  Marx :  the  leaders  of  the  syndicalist 

1  See  on  this  subject  the  study  by  Lagardelle  on  the  origins 
of  syndicalism  in  France  in  the  Mouvement  Socialiste.  Nov.- 
Dec,  1909. 


INTRODUCTION  29 

movement  did  not  know  his  theories  and,  oftener  than 
not,  had  only  confused  notions  of  historical  materialism. 
Their  tactics  may  have  been  sometimes  open  to  criticism, 
because  they  were  doing  pioneer  work,  with  no  one  to 
advise  them.  Today,  things  are  sufficiently  advanced  so 
that  we  may  take  account  of  the  role  which  the  syndi- 
cats  are  called  upon  to  play. 

We  see  today  very  clearly  that  the  proletariat  can 
emancipate  itself  from  all  exploitation  only  by  estab- 
lishing itself  on  the  model  of  the  old  social  classes, 
taking  lessons  from  the  bourgeoisie  as  that  class  for- 
merly took  lessons  from  the  nobility,  by  adapting  the 
old  political  formulas  to  its  new  needs,  and  by  conquer- 
ing the  public  powers  in  order  to  appropriate  the  profit 
from  them  as  the  capitalist  class  has  done  in  all 
countries. 

If,  as  Marx  says,  the  proletarians  can  not  lay  hold 
of  the  forces  of  social  production  without  abolishing 
the  "mode  of  appropriation  in  force  up  to  our  time," 
how  can  one  admit  that  they  can  preserve  the  quintes- 
sence of  the  capitalist  mode  of  appropriation,  that  is  to 
say,  the  forms  of  the  traditional  government?  Such  a 
conclusion  would  be  the  negation  of  the  whole  of 
historical  materialism.  Finally,  how  could  the  differen- 
tiation of  governed  and  governors  disappear,  if  there 
did  not  exist  in  society  forces,  long  ago  developed, 
capable  of  preventing  the  return  of  the  past? 

As  it  confronts  the  State,  the  action  of  the  pro- 
letariat is  two-fold :  it  must  struggle  within  the  present 
relations  of  the  political  organization,  to  obtain  social 
legislation  favorable  to  its  development;  it  must  use 
whatever  influence  it  acquires  either  in  public  opinion 
or  in  the  government,  to  destroy  the  present  relation- 
ships of  the  political  organization,  to  strip  the  State 
and  the  municipality,  one  by  one,  of  all  their  attributes, 
thereby  to  enrich  the  proletarian  organisms  in  process 
of  formation,  namely,  the  syndicats  (industrial 
unions). 


30  INTRODUCTION 

The  proletariat  must  aim  to  emancipate  itself  hence- 
forth from  all  outside  authority;  it  is  by  movement  and 
action  that  it  must  acquire  legal  and  political  capacity. 
The  first  rule  of  its  conduct  must  be  to  "remain  exclu- 
sively working-class,"  that  is,  to  exclude  the  intellec- 
tuals, whose  leadership  would  result  in  restoring  the 
hierarchies  and  dividing  the  army  of  toilers.  The  role 
of  the  intellectuals  is  an  auxiliary  role;  they  may  serve 
as  employees  of  the  unions ;  they  have  no  qualification 
for  leadership,  now  that  the  proletariat  has  begun  to 
be  conscious  of  its  reality  and  to  establish  its  own 
organization. 

The  development  of  the  proletariat  makes  possible  a 
powerful  moral  discipline  exercised  over  its  members: 
this  can  be  exercised  by  its  unions,  which  are  destined 
to  wipe  out  all  forms  of  organization  bequeathed  by 
the  bourgeoisie. 

To  sum  up  my  whole  thought  in  one  formula,  I  will 
say  that  the  whole  future  of  socialism  is  contained  in 
the  free  development  of  the  industrial  unions. 

It  will  be  seen  that  at  this  moment  Sorel  did 
not  declare  against  all  political  action.  Neither 
did  he  profess  the  contempt  that  he  proclaimed 
later  in  his  "Introduction  to  Modern  Economics" 
for  co-operative  action.  He  admitted  on  the  con- 
trary that,  even  if  the  co-operatives  did  nothing 
but  make  life  less  hard  for  the  workers,  even  this 
would  be  an  enormous  result.  Experience  had 
already  shown  to  Young  that  the  best  paid 
workers  were  the  most  inclined  to  resistance; 
all  writers  are  today  unanimous  in  recognizing 
that  poverty  is  a  great  obstacle  to  the  progress  of 
socialism,   but,   they   add,   the   co-operative   has 


INTRODUCTION  31 

one  effect  still  more  direct,  in  that  it  takes  the 
worker  away  from  the  influence  of  the  shop- 
keeper, that  great  elector  of  bourgeois  democracy ; 
this  is  no  small  result. 

However,  according  to  Sorel,  it  is  for  the 
unions  to  preserve  the  proletarian  spirit  in  the 
co-operatives,  to  prevent  their  growing  into  mere 
business  concerns,  and  to  eliminate  from  them 
whatever  savors  of  the  capitalist  corporation. 
And  again,  it  is  on  the  unions,  on  the  direct  action 
of  the  unions,  that  he  counts  for  obtaining  from 
the  legislator,  not  laws  of  protection  and  guar- 
dianship, but  facilities  for  proceeding  with  the 
transformation  of  the  nation  by  itself. 

Thus  for  example: 

1.  Many  people  think  that  the  employment 
agencies  ought  to  be  municipalized,  but  the 
unions  have  well  understood  that  if  they  could 
obtain  control  of  these  agencies,  this  conquest 
would  be  of  great  importance  for  them,  not  only 
because  of  the  authority  they  would  have  over 
the  workers  of  each  trade,  but  especially  because 
they  would  have  wrested  from  the  traditional 
authority  a  scrap  of  its  power. 

2.  A  few  years  ago,  miners'  delegates  were  in- 
troduced to  supplement  the  insufficiency  of  gov- 
ernment supervision ;  in  selecting  them  the  old 
democratic  tradition   was    followed,   leaving  the 


32  INTRODUCTION 

unions  side-tracked.  So  again  when  it  was  neces- 
sary to  organize  pensions  and  sickness  and  acci- 
dent benefits.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  unions 
strive  to  conquer  this  power  of  supervision  in- 
directly, by  contesting  the  elections ;  when  they 
shall  have  acquired  it  in  a  general  and  indirect 
manner,  the  legislator  will  be  forced  to  recog- 
nize them  and  to  suppress  the  fiction  of  a  useless 
vote. 

3.  Every  one  complains  of  the  excessive  super- 
vision exercised  over  factories ;  the  inspectors  are 
too  numerous,  and  their  good  will  (when  they 
have  any)  is  nullified  by  administrative  inertia  or 
even  repressed  by  the  public  powers.  The  solu- 
tion of  the  radicals  is  very  simple :  to  multiply 
functionaries  so  as  to  furnish  jobs  to  the  intel- 
lectuals who  are  out  of  work.  The  socialist  solu- 
tion is  even  simpler  and  more  economical :  to 
assign  the  duty  of  inspection  to  the  unions ;  thus 
it  would  be  assured  that  this  would  be  serious 
and  practical. 

4.  Finally,  it  is  not  evident  that  the  unions 
would  be  much  more  capable  than  municipal  em- 
ployes to  take  care  of  questions  of  relief?  There 
again  their  intervention  would  be  more  efficient 
and  less  costly  than  that  of  the  established  bodies. 

To  sum  up  then,  in  Sorel's  view,  unionist  action 
in  the  political  field  should  not  have  for  its  aim  to 


INTRODUCTION  33 

conquer  the  State  in  order  to  abolish  it  later,  but 
to  work  from  now  on  for  its  final  abolition,  by 
substituting  union  action  for  state  action : 

It  is  necessary  that  the  unions  strip  the  State  of  its 
powers,  little  by  little,  by  demanding  them  incessantly, 
by  interesting  the  public  in  their  efforts,  by  denouncing 
abuses  without  respite,  by  showing  the  incompetence  or 
the  dishonesty  of  the  public  administrations.  They  will 
thus  eventually  take  away  from  the  old  forms,  pre- 
served by  the  democrats,  everything  vital  in  them,  and 
leave  them  nothing  but  the  repulsive  functions  of  police 
repression.  Then  a  new  society  will  have  been  created, 
with  elements  completely  new,  with  principles  purely 
proletarian.  The  societies  of  resistance  will  have  ended 
by  enlarging  their  field  of  action  to  such  a  degree  that 
they  will  have  absorbed  nearly  everything  political. 

That,  as  I  understand  it,  according  to  the  material- 
istic conception  of  history,  is  the  final  struggle  for  the 
public  powers.  It  is  not  a  struggle  to  capture  the 
positions  held  by  the  bourgeois  and  to  deck  ourselves 
out  in  their  spoils;  it  is  a  struggle  to  empty  the  bour- 
geois political  organism  of  all  life,  and  to  transfer 
everything  useful  contained  by  it  into  a  proletarian 
political  organism,  created  as  fast  as  the  proletariat 
develops. 

This  study  by  Sorel,  at  the  time  of  its  publica- 
tion, received  scarcely  any  notice. 

The  C.  G.  T.  (General  Confederation  of  Labor) 
created  in  1895,  numbered  few  adherents  and  had 
not  yet  clearly  defined  its  syndicalist  tendencies. 

The  Federation  of  Labor  Exchanges,  headed 
by  Fernand  Pelloutier,  remained  the  head  and 
the  heart  of  the  syndicalist  movement.    Like  the 


34  INTRODUCTION 

C.  G.  T.,  it  aimed  to  co-ordinate  wcrking-class 
action  outside  the  socialist  groups,  and  to  unite 
the  workers  on  the  economic  field  in  the  struggle 
for  their  complete  emancipation. 

But,  while  affirming  the  theoretical  necessity  of 
a  rupture  between  the  bourgeois  State  and  the 
organized  labor  movement,  the  Federation  re- 
mained practically  incorporated  into  the  State 
which  it  pretended  to  combat,  by  the  fact  that  it 
accepted  the  subsidy  from  the  government  as  its 
normal  means  of  existence. 

Before  the  syndicalist  tendencies,  outlined  in 
theory  by  Sorel,  could  take  shape  in  a  powerful 
organization,  a  crisis  was  needed,  and  this  was 
produced  in  the  socialist  and  labor  circles  in  1900, 
when  M.  Millerand,  at  that  time  one  of  the  leaders 
of  parliamentary  socialism,  accepted  a  portfolio 
in  the  Waldeck-Rousseau-Gallifet  ministry. 

As  Griffuelhes  pointed  out  at  the  C.  G.  T.  Con- 
gress six  years  later,  it  was  to  react  against  the 
reformism  of  the  parliamentary  socialists  that  a 
coalition  of  anarchists,  Guesdists,  Blanquists, 
Allemanists  and  various  other  elements  was 
formed,  to  isolate  the  unions  from  the  govern- 
ment. This  coalition  succeeded  in  maintaining 
itself,  and  was  the  life  of  the  C.  G.  T. 

At  its  origin  then,  the  syndicalist  movement 
was  nothing  else  than  a  protest  against  Millerand- 


INTRODUCTION  35 

ism  and  against  government  attempts  at  the 
domestication  of  the  trade  unions. 

While  the  majority  of  the  socialist  party  ap- 
proved the  policy  of  M.  Millerand  and  accorded 
its  parliamentary  support,  the  advanced  elements 
of  the  unions  took  an  attitude  more  and  more 
hostile,  both  toward  the  minister  and  toward  the 
socialists  who  supported  him. 

But  little  by  little  this  mistrust  of  a  definite 
kind  of  politics  took  on  a  character  of  hostility 
or  at  least  indifference,  towards  all  politics  in 
general,  and  in  1906,  at  the  syndicalist  Congress 
of  Amiens,  an  enormous  majority  declared  in 
favor  of  a  motion  proclaiming  the  absolute  sepa- 
ration of  the  political  movement  and  the  syn- 
dicalist movement. 

True,  the  Congress  asserted  for  each  member 
of  a  union  "entire  liberty  to  participate,  outside 
his  co-operative  group,  in  such  forms  of  struggle 
as  correspond  to  his  philosophical  and  political 
condition,"  but  he  was  requested  not  .to  introduce 
into  the  union  the  opinions  that  he  professed  out- 
side. It  was  proclaimed  that  the  federated  organ- 
izations should  not,  as  unions,  concern  themselves 
with  parties  or  sects.  On  the  other  hand,  a  clearly 
anti-capitalist  viewpoint  was  adopted.  They  took 
their  stand  on  the  field  of  the  class  struggle,  pro- 
claiming that  the  mission  of  syndicalism  is  to  pre- 


36  INTRODUCTION 

pare  for  the  complete  emancipation  of  the  prole- 
tariat, which  can  only  be  realized  by  the  expro- 
priation of  the  capitalists ;  they  advocated  the 
general  strike  as  a  means  of  action,  and  held  that 
the  union,  today  a  group  for  resistance,  will  be 
tomorrow  a  group  for  production  and  distribu- 
tion, a  basis  for  social  reorganization. 

But,  in  fact,  the  motion  passed  at  Amiens  gave 
to  the  libertarian  or  syndicalist  elements,  which 
already  dominated  the  C.  G.  T.,  full  license  to  pur- 
sue their  advantage  and  consolidate  their  control. 

Thus,  less  than  six  years  after  the  publication 
of  Sorel's  pamphlet,  his  ruling  ideas  had  become 
the  official  doctrine  of  the  C.  G.  T. 

To  become  convinced  of  this,  one  need  only 
read  in  the  library  of  the  Mouvement  Socialists, 
published  by  Lagardelle,  the  pamphlets  published 
in  1907-1908  under  the  following  titles : 

I.  Syndicalisme  et  Socialisme,  by  Lagardelle,  La- 
briola,  Michels,  Kritchewsky,  Griffuelhes. 

II.  La  Confederation  generate  du  Travail,  by  Pouget. 

III.  La  Decomposition  du  Marxisme,  by  Sorel. 

IV.  L'Action  syndicaliste,  by  Griffuelhes. 

V.  Le  Parti  socialiste  et  la  C.  G.  T.,  a  discussion  by 
Jules  Guesde,  Lagardelle,  Vaillant. 

In  the  pamphlet  by  Pouget,  for  example,  we 

find  this  very  clear  affirmation,  that  the  working 

class,  in  giving  itself  an  independent  organization, 

meant  "to  establish  itself  as  a  class  party,  in  op- 


INTRODUCTION  37 

position  to  all  other  parties  and  in  opposition  to 
all  other  classes." 

The  goal  which  it  seeks  is  to  "realize  and  to 
fortify  groups  fit  to  accomplish  the  expropriation 
of  the  capitalists  and  capable  of  proceeding  to  a 
social  reorganization  on  the  communist  plan." 
(Page  3.) 

To  arrive  at  these  ends,  the  "federal  union  is 
accomplished  outside  all  political  schools,  which 
are  all — even  those  which  connect  themselves  with 
doctrines  of  social  transformation — nothing  but 
a  prolongation  of  democracy."    (Page  25.) 

The  C.  G.  T.,  on  the  other  hand,  makes  a 
complete  break  between  present  society  and  the 
working  class.  It  does  not  abdicate  before  any 
social  problem,  not  even  politics,  using  that  word 
in  its  broad  sense.  What  distinguishes  it  from 
the  democratic  parties,  is  that  it  does  not  partici- 
pate in  parliamentary  life  ;  it  is  non-parliamentary , 
as  it  is  non-religious,  and  also  as  it  is  non- 
patriotic. 

But  its  indifference  to  parliamentary  matters 
does  not  prevent  it  from  reacting  against  the 
government,  and  experience  has  proved  the 
efficacy  of  its  action  exerted  against  the  public 
powers  by  exterior  pressure.     (Page  28.) 

As  for  tactics,  these  are  pretty  nearly  the  op- 


38  INTRODUCTION 

posite  of  the  tactics  followed  by  the  democratic 

parties,  socialists  included. 

1.     The  democratic  parties  strive  to  win  the 

majority.    The  C.  G.  T.,  on  the  contrary,  counts 

most  of  all  on  the  action  of  the  minority : 

If  the  democratic  mechanism  were  practiced  in  labor 
organizations,  the  non-will  of  the  unthinking  and  non- 
syndicalist  majority  would  paralyze  all  action.  But  the 
minority  is  not  disposed  to  abdicate  its  demands  and 
its  aspirations  before  the  inertia  of  a  mass  not  yet 
animated  and  vivified  with  the  spirit  of  revolt.  Conse- 
quently there  exists  for  the  conscious  minority  an 
obligation  to  act  without  taking  account  of  the  retard- 
ing mass,  under  penalty  of  being  forced  to  bend  the 
spine  like  the  unthinking  ones.     (Page  35.) 

The  democratic  parties  count  on  their  dele- 
gates in  political  assemblies.  The  C.  G.  T.,  on  the 
other  hand,  practices  direct  action,  that  is  to  say, 
syndicalist  action,  free  from  all  alloy,  without 
capitalistic  or  governmental  compromise,  without 
intrusion  into  the  debate  of  "persons  interposed." 
(Page  37.) 

This  direct  action,  morover.  is  not  necessarily 
violent :  it  may  appear  under  aspects  benevolent 
and  pacific  or  very  vigorous  and  even  violent, 
without  ceasing  to  be,  in  either  case,  direct  action. 

Again,  it  is  various  in  its  modalities,  according 
to  whether  the  attack  is  more  expressly  directed 
against  the  capitalists  or  against  the  State. 
Against  the  latter,  direct  action  materializes  itself 


INTRODUCTION  39 

under  form  of  external  pressure,  while  against 
the  employer,  the  common  methods  are  the  strike, 
boycott  and  sabotage. 

3.  Finally,  the  democratic  parties,  the  socialist 
parties  included,  wish  to  grasp  political  power, 
and  among  the  means  for  arriving  at  that  solu- 
tion, include  parliamentary  action.  The  C.  G.  T., 
on  the  contrary,  does  not  conduct  its  struggle 
against   the    government   on   the    parliamentary 

field: 

'And  that  because  syndicalism  does  not  look  to  a 
simple  modification  of  the  governmental  personnel,  but 
rather  to  a  reduction  of  the  State  to  zero,  by  trans- 
planting into  the  syndicalist  organs  the  few  useful 
functions  which  keep  up  the  illusion  of  the  value  of 
government,  and  by  suppressing  the  others  purely  and 
simply.     (Page  45.) 

And  the  method  of  action  which  will  permit 
the  working  class  to  carry  through  this  work — 
that  of  general  emancipation — is  the  logical  cul- 
mination of  its  grouping  on  the  economic  field  and 
of  the  conceptions  arising  from  this.  It  has  its 
expression  in  the  idea  of  the  general  strike : 

The  general  strike  is  the  material  break  between  the 
proletariat  and  the  bourgeoisie,  preceded  by  the  moral 
and  ideological  break  involved  in  the  affirmation  of  the 
autonomy  of  the  working  class.  This  class,  after  having 
proclaimed  that  it  bears  within  itself  all  the  real  ele- 
ments of  social  life,  having  acquired  the  vigor  and  the 
consciousness  necessary  to  impose  its  will,  will  proceed 
to  action,  by  refusing  to  produce  for  the  capitalist  class, 
and  this  decisive  revolt  will  be  the  general  strike. 


40  INTRODUCTION 

This  refusal  to  continue  production  on  the  capi- 
talist plan  will  not  be  purely  negative :  it  will 
coincide  with  the  seizure  of  the  social  machinery 
and  a  reorganization  on  the  communist  plan  ac- 
complished by  the  social  assemblies  which  the 
unions  constitute.  The  syndicalist  organisms, 
grown  into  the  hearthstones  of  the  new  life,  will 
break  up  and  replace  the  hearthstones  of  the  old 
life  constituted  by  the  State  and  the  munici- 
palities : 

Thenceforth,  the  centers  of  cohesion  will  be  the 
federations  of  industries,  in  the  syndicalist  unions,  and 
to  these  organisms  will  revert  the  few  useful  functions 
that  today  devolve  upon  the  public  powers  and  the 
municipalities.     (Page  48.) 

As  we  said  just  now,  there  is  nothing  in  this 
pamphlet  of  Pouget  that  is  not  a  logical  deduction 
from  the  premises  of  Sorel  in  "The  Socialist 
Future  of  the  Unions." 

But  while  Sorel,  in  1898,  still  maintained  that 
his  revolutionary  syndicalism  was  nothing  but 
the  development  of  the  anti-statist  conceptions  of 
Marxism,  Pouget,  an  old-time  anarchist,  endeav- 
ors on  the  contrary  to  differentiate  as  clearly  as 
possible  revolutionary  syndicalism  from  demo- 
cratic socialism. 

Perhaps  in  Griffuelhes,  who  has  passed  through 
socialism,  or  in  Lagardelle,  who  has  never  ceased 
to  be  a  member  of  the  socialist  party,  the  break 


INTRODUCTION  41 

is  not  quite  so  clear.  Nevertheless,  the  funda- 
mental conception  remains  the  same.  Griffuelhes, 
like  Pouget,  sees  in  syndicalism  the  "reaction  of 
the  unions  against  democracy."  And,  on  his  side, 
Lagardelle,  at  the  socialist  Congress  of  Nancy 
(August  11-15,  1907)  criticizes  sharply  the 
Marxian  conception,  re-stated  by  Guesde,  of  the 
conquest  of  political  power : 

Hubert  Lagardelle. — There  are  two  ways  of  conceiv- 
ing this  seizure  of  the  State.  The  first,  which  is  that 
of  the  reformist  socialists,  is  the  fragmentary  and  pro- 
gressive method.  It  consists  in  saying :  The  day  when 
we  shall  be  one-half  plus  one  in  Parliament,  when  the 
majority  of  the  districts  shall  be  represented  by  a 
majority  of  socialist  deputies;  or  again  the  day  when, 
after  having  participated  in  various  governments,  we 
shall  be  able  to  constitute  a  government  by  ourselves, — 
on  that  day  we  shall  bring  about,  through  legislation, 
the  social  transformation. 

Jules  Guesde. — That  is  not  my  theory. 

Hubert  Lagardelle. — Then  here  is  your  theory,  your 
universal  and  revolutionary  method,  which  says :  Let 
us  conquer  the  State  by  a  sudden  attack,  and  once 
masters  of  its  power,  we  shall  impose  the  "impersonal 
dictatorship  of  the  proletariat,"  we  shall  socialize  the 
means  of  production  and  exchange,  we  shall  decree  the 
social  revolution. 

I  say  that  these  two  conceptions  are  equally  Utopian 
because  they  give  the  coercive  power  of  the  State  a 
creative  value  which  it  does  not  possess.  Whether  you 
operate  according  to  the  reformist  fashion  or  accord- 
ing to  the  revolutionary  fashion,  whether  you  become 
the  half-plus-one  in  the  Chamber  or  whether  you  have 
taken  the  government  by  assault,  you  will  not  cause  a 
completely  constructed  society  to  arise  from  one  day  to 


42  INTRODUCTION 

the  next.  No  matter  what  authority  you  have  at  your 
disposal,  you  will  not  give  to  the  workers  who  vote  for 
socialist  candidates,  or  to  the  electors  who  for  motives 
sometimes  futile  and  intangible  give  you  their  support, 
the  capacity  to  direct  production  and  exchange.  You 
will  be  the  masters  of  the  hour,  you  will  wield  all  the 
power  which  yesterday  belonged  to  the  bourgeoisie,  you 
will  pile  decree  upon  decree  and  law  upon  law,  but  you 
will  work  no  miracle,  and  no  blow  you  can  strike  will 
make  the  workers  competent  to  replace  the  capitalists 
In  what,  tell  me,  will  the  possession  of  power  by  certain 
men  called  political  socialists  have  transformed  the 
psychology  of  the  masses,  modified  their  sentiments, 
increased  their  aptitudes,  created  new  rules  of  life,  and 
made  way  for  a  society  of  free  men  to  exist  in  place  of 
a  society  of  masters  and  slaves? 

No,  the  transformation  of  the  world  does  not  depend 
on  a  simple  change  in  governmental  personnel.  That 
would  truly  be  too  easy,  and  the  march  of  history  has 
other  requirements.  A  social  State  is  not  born  without 
long  preparation,  and  it  is  here  that  syndicalism,  with 
a  more  realistic  conception  of  things,  opposes  to  you 
what  I  call  the  socialism  of  institutions.  It  reminds  the 
workers  that  no  change  will  be  possible  until  they  shall 
have  created  with  their  own  hands  a  complete  mass 
of  institutions  destined  to  replace  the  institutions  of  the 
capitalists. 

Such  are,  in  short,  the  principal  theses  of  revo- 
lutionary syndicalism. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  they  contain,  at  the 
very  least,  a  kernel  of  truth. 

By  reacting  against  the  tendencies  of  certain 
socialist  parties  toward  too  much  politics,  by 
showing  that  socialism  should  not  devote  itself  too 
exclusively  to  the  conquest  of  political  power,  by 


INTRODUCTION  43 

insisting  on  the  pre-eminent  value  of  union  ac- 
tivity, and  by  putting  the  working  class  on  guard 
against  the  temptation  of  acting  only  through 
delegates,  syndicalism  has  certainly  done  a  useful 
work  and  has  contributed  in  large  measure,  not 
to  the  decomposition  of  Marxism,  but  on  the  con- 
trary, to  a  more  exact  comprehension  of  the  fund- 
amental ideas  of  Marxism. 

Only,  the  syndicalists  would  be  the  first  to  pro- 
test, if  we  were  to  pretend  to  see  in  their  doctrine 
merely  a  return  to  Marx,  or  even  a  simple  re- 
vision— revision  in  the  revolutionary  sense — of 
Marxism. 

When  Sorel,  in  "L'Avenir  Socialiste  des  Syn- 
dicats,"  wrote  that  the  action  of  the  proletariat 
confronting  the  State  should  be  two-fold:  to 
struggle  to  obtain  social  legislation  favorable  to 
its  development ;  to  use  whatever  influence  it 
acquires  "to  strip  the  municipality  and  the  State, 
one  by  one,  of  all  their  attributes,  thereby  to 
enrich  the  proletarian  organisms  in  process  of 
formation,  namely,  the  industrial  unions,"  his 
syndicalism  practically  repeats  or  comes  near  re- 
peating what  Marx  and  Engels  had  said  long  ago. 

But  he  is  already  separating  from  them  when 
he  maintains  that  "the  whole  future  of  socialism 
dwells  in  the  autonomous  development  of  the 
industrial  unions."    And  soon  we  shall  find  our- 


44  INTRODUCTION 

selves  very  far  from  Marxism,  when  Pouget, 
Griffuelhes,  Merrheim,  pretend  to  reduce  all  pro- 
letarian action  to  syndicalist  action  alone,  when 
they  proclaim  under  all  circumstances  their  con- 
tempt for  the  parliamentarians  and  politicians  of 
the  socialist  parties,  when  they  affirm  their  exclu- 
sive confidence  in  the  action  of  conscious  minori- 
ties, when  they  ridicule  large  memberships  and 
high  dues,  when  they  oppose  to  the  reformist  or 
revolutionary  idea  of  conquest  of  political  power 
the  idea  of  the  general  strike  as  the  sole  means 
of  accomplishing  the  expropriation  of  the  capi- 
talists and  of  proceeding  to  social  reorganization 
on  the  communist  plan. 

At  this  stage  of  development,  the  syndicalist 
doctrine  has,  so  to  speak,  no  longer  anything  in 
common  with  the  conceptions  of  Marx  and 
Engels.  It  borrows  its  principal  elements  from 
other  sources.  It  has  been  profoundly  influenced 
by  libertarian  theories.  It  sees  in  the  abolition  of 
the  State  no  longer  a  final  goal,  but  a  near  goal. 
It  rejects  or  relegates  to  the  background  the  action 
of  the  proletariat  with  a  view  to  conquering 
political  power. 

And  by  this  fact,  it  puts  itself  in  opposition 
with  the  ruling  ideas  of  the  social  democracy. 
3.     The  Social  Democracy 

Reformist  socialism,  retaining  from  the  Com- 


INTRODUCTION  45 

munist  Manifesto  nothing  but  its  program  for 
immediate  realization,  tends  to  degenerate  into 
a  State  of  socialism,  dominated  by  parliamentary 
and  electoral  considerations. 

Revolutionary  syndicalism,  on  the  contrary, 
pushing  to  extremes  the  anti-statism  of  Marx  and 
Engels,  retains  only  their  final  objective,  the  abo- 
lition of  the  State,  and  sees  in  the  political  action 
of  the  labor  parties  only  an  accessory  or  even 
a  nuisance. 

It  is  at  once  against  this  syndicalist  exclusivism 
and  this  reformist  exclusivism  that  the  social 
democracy  strives  to  react,  by  assigning  to  the 
workers  a  double  objective :  ( 1 )  the  conquest  of 
the  State  by  the  proletariat  organized  into  politi- 
cal parties;  (2)  this  conquest  being  accomplished, 
the  abolition  of  the  State  as  an  organ  of  domina- 
tion of  one  class  over  another,  or,  to  repeat  the 
expressions  already  quoted  from  Kautsky,  "the 
transformation  of  present  society  into  a  great 
economic  co-operative  by  the  centralization  of  the 
means  of  production." 

But  inside  the  social  democracy,  we  may  point 
out  notable  divergencies  as  regards  the  manner 
of  conceiving  the  conquest  of  the  State,  the  seiz- 
ure of  political  power. 

Among  the  members  of  the  International  and 
of  the  parties  affiliated  with  the   International, 


46  INTRODUCTION 

there  are  some,  on  the  right,  whose  conception 
does  not  greatly  differ  from  that  of  the  inde- 
pendent socialists  or  reformists ;  there  are  others, 
on  the  left,  who  are  on  the  contrary  more  or  less 
close  to  revolutionary  syndicalism ;  and  between 
these  two  extremes,  we  find,  more  or  less  numer- 
ous in  the  various  countries,  under  the  names  of 
"Marxians,"  "radicals,"  "revolutionary  socialists," 
militants  who  strive  to  shape  their  action  to  the 
fundamental  ideas  developed  in  the  Communist 
Manifesto  and  the  other  writings  of  Marx  and 
Engels. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  no  lines  of  demarcation  are 
clearly  drawn  between  these  three  groups. 

Among  the  socialists  with  reformist  tendencies 
who  adhere  to  the  International,  there  is  none, 
however  enamored  of  electoral  and  parliamentary 
methods,  who  does  not  admit  that,  at  a  given 
moment,  the  conquest  of  political  power  may  be 
the  result  of  a  revolutionary  act  or  a  series  of 
revolutionary  acts,  and  that,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  direct  action  of  the  industrial  unions  may 
be  a  necessary  adjunct  to  the  action  of  the  social- 
ist parties. 

Likewise,  among  the  "revolutionaries,"  there 
are  none  who  ignore  the  utility  of  parliamentary 
or  syndicalist  action. 

As  for  the  socialists  with  syndicalist  tendencies, 


INTRODUCTION  47 

from  the  moment  they  join  the  socialist  party 
and  the  International,  they  must,  by  that  very 
fact,  admit  the  necessity  of  political  action, 
whether  reformist  or  revolutionary. 

This  was  recognized  by  Hubert  Lagardelle,  for 
example,  in  the  following  terms  in  an  article, 
"The  Syndicalist  Critique  of  Democracy,"  pub- 
lished in  the  Mouvement  Socialiste  in  1911. 

In  emphasizing  the  value  of  the  industrial  union,  we 
have  not  denied  the  task  of  the  socialist  party.  We 
have  simply  given  it  a  limited  role:  to  recognize  the 
priority  of  labor  organizations  in  the  elaboration  of 
socialist  values  and  proclaim  the  relativity  of  its  own 
task ;  then  to  limit  its  action  to  the  field  of  pure  politics, 
which  syndicalism  does  not  touch;  finally,  to  reduce 
the  power  of  the  State,  by  reorganizing  the  public 
service  on  syndicalist  foundations. 

Such  ideas,  assuredly,  do  not  go  directly  counter 
to  the  declarations  of  principles  found  in  the 
programs  of  the  various  socialist  parties.  They 
do  not  prevent  the  socialists  who  "emphasize 
the  value  of  the  industrial  union"  from  joining 
the  same  groups  as  other  socialists  who  attach 
a  greater  importance  to  political  action,  in  the 
sense  of  parliamentary  action. 

Nevertheless,  it  should  not  be  ignored  that 
from  the  point  of  view  of  principles,  as  well  as  of 
methods,  there  is  somewhat  of  a  margin  between 
socialism  thus  conceived  and  the  traditional  social- 
ism developed  from  the  Communist  Manifesto. 


48  INTRODUCTION 

In  order  the  better  to  understand  this  differ- 
ence, again,  it  will  be  best  to  compare  the  argu- 
ments of  Lagardelle  with  those  of  the  French 
socialists  who,  under  the  influence  of  Jules 
Guesde,  oppose  most  energetically  the  "syndic- 
alist" tendencies,  and  glory  in  being  the  most 
faithful  disciples  of  Marx  and  Engels. 

Let  us  not  forget,  however,  that  more  than 
half  a  century  has  passed  since  the  Manifesto, 
that  the  unification  of  socialist  forces  in  France 
is,  as  elsewhere,  the  result  of  theoretical  and  prac- 
tical compromises  between  divergent  tendencies; 
that,  consequently,  it  becomes  difficult  today  to 
oppose  clearly  Guesdism,  the  French  adaptation 
of  Marxism,  either  to  the  socialism  with  reform- 
ist tendencies,  or  to  the  socialism  with  syndicalist 
tendencies.  On  the  contrary,  the  opposition  of 
these  tendencies  becomes  very  clear  when,  going 
a  few  years  back,  as  we  have  for  syndicalism 
and  reformism,  we  revert  to  the  Declaration  of 
Principles  of  the  Parti  Ouvrier  Frangais,  founded 
in  1880  by  Guesde  and  Lafargue,  under  the  direct 
inspiration  and  with  the  doctrinal  collaboration  of 
Marx  and  Engels. 

In  the  theoretical  preamble  of  this  program,  in 
which  are  found  all  the  essential  ideas  of  the 
Manifesto,  it  is  affirmed  that  "the  collective  ap- 
propriation of  the  means  of  production   (lands, 


INTRODUCTION  49 

factories,  ships,  banks,  credit,  etc.),  can  proceed 
only  from  the  revolutionary  action  of  the  pro- 
ductive class,  of  the  proletariat  organized  as  a 
distinct  party,"  and  that  "such  an  organization 
must  be  striven  for  by  all  the  means  at  the  dis- 
posal of  the  proletariat,  including  universal  suf- 
frage, thus  transformed  from  an  instrument  of 
dupery,  which  it  has  been  until  now,  into  an  in- 
strument of  emancipation." 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  insist  on  the  differ- 
ence between  this  conception  and  those  of  syn- 
dicalist socialism  or  of  reformist  socialism,  as 
well  from  the  viewpoint  of  the  goal  to  attain  as 
of  the  means  to  employ. 

First,  as  regards  the  seizure  of  political  power, 
the  founders  of  the  Parti  Ouvrier  believed  no 
more  in  the  efficacy  of  the  general  strike,  con- 
ceived as  the  means  of  accomplishing  the  social 
revolution,  then  in  the  gradual  conquest  of  the 
State  by  the  sole  virtue  of  universal  suffrage. 

Moreover,  they  have  not  changed  their  opinion 
on  this  point. 

A  noteworthy  declaration  of  Guesde  is  found 
in  his  discussion  with  Lagardelle  at  the  Congress 
of  Nancy  in  1907 : 

Contrary  to  what  some  assert,  I  have  never  subordi- 
nated the  emancipation  of  the  proletariat  to  its  electoral 
or  legal  accession  to  power. 

Never    have    I    led    the    workers    to    believe    for    a 


50  INTRODUCTION 

moment,  either  in  my  general  propaganda,  or  in  my 
campaigns  in  support  of  the  candidacies  of  my  com- 
rades, that  the  ballot  could  suffice  to  set  them  free; 
last  year  again,  at  Reims,  during  the  whole  electoral 
campaign  I  have  been  repeating  that  the  elections  are 
only  a  means  for  organizing  the  proletariat ;  they  are 
its  grand  manoeuvres.  Here  it  acquires  a  conscious- 
ness and  a  measure  of  its  strength,  at  the  same  time 
that  it  is  approaching  the  position  to  be  captured,  until, 
with  a  thrust  of  two,  three,  four  millions  of  voters,  full 
of  confidence  in  itself,  it  gives  the  final  push,  exer- 
cising its  right  of  insurrection,  accomplishing  its 
inevitable  revolution.  To  this  language  I  have  held 
everywhere  and  always.1 

On  the  other  hand,  against  the  anti-statism  of 

the  syndicalists  and  the  statism  of  the  reformists, 

the  Guesdists  maintained,  and  still  maintain,  with 

more  or  less  fanaticism,  that : 

1.  The  existence  of  public  services  in  the  pres- 
ent society,  by  the  nationalization  of  certain 
monopolies,  has  nothing  to  do  with  socialism ; 
that  for  the  proletariat  it  presents  far  more  dis- 
advantages than  advantages. 

2.  The  inauguration  of  public  services  is  sub- 
ordinated to  the  socialization  of  the  means  of  pro- 
duction and  exchange,  which  itself  is  subordi- 
nated to  the  seizure  of  political  power  by  the 
proletariat  and  the  expropriation  of  the  capitalist 
class,  which  means  revolution.' 


1  Le    parti    soclaliste    et    la    Confederation    generate    du 
Travail,  p.  39. 

2Guesde,  le  Socialisme  et  les  services  publics,  p.  20. 


INTRODUCTION  51 

On  this  subject  one  should  read  the  pamphlet 
written  by  Jules  Guesde  in  October,  1883,  from 
the  prison  of  Sainte-Pelagie,  against  Brousse, 
Malon  and  other  "possibilists"  who  advocated, 
within  the  structure  of  the  present  society,  the 
nationalization  of  the  railroads,  mines  and  other 
monopolized  industries. 

Public  services  thus  understood,  he  said  in 
substance,  have  nothing  to  do  with  modern  social- 
ism. Rather  than  pursue  the  extension  of  these, 
there  is  ground  for  attacking  those  which  exist 
and  which  constitute  so  many  obstacles  in  the 
way  of  proletarian  organization  and  action.  If 
Germany  has  incorporated  the  railroads  into  the 
imperial  State  of  the  Hohenzollerns,  it  is  in  order 
to  bring  to  its  maximum  power  that  machine  for 
murder  and  pillage  which,  across  the  Vosges 
mountains,  as  everywhere,  the  army  of  passive 
obedience  constitutes, — it  is  a  strategic  or  mili- 
tary expedient.  If  France  has  been  menaced 
for  some  time  with  a  new  public  service,  the  tele- 
phones, it  is  because  private  telephoning  makes  a 
serious  competition  with  State  telegraphy,  and 
because,  moreover,  it  escapes  that  eagle  eye  which 
the  capitalist  State,  master  of  telegraphs  and 
posts,  turns  at  pleasure  upon  our  letters  and  mes- 
sages,— it  is  an  expedient  both  of  the  Treasury 
and  the  police.     If  the  French  submarine  cables 


52  INTRODUCTION 

have  been  laid  and  operated  by  the  State,  it  is  be- 
cause, under  the  urgent  need  of  binding  to  the 
Metropolis  colonies  which  must  not  be  left  to 
themselves,  our  rulers  could  not  extend  the  neces- 
sary time  for  completing  this  work  to  private  en- 
terprise,— it  was  a  colonial  expedient. 

We  can  not  even  say,  as  some  pretend,  that  the 
public  services  are  at  least  fortunate  expedients, 
that  they  will  facilitate  the  expropriation  of  the 
ruling  classes  by  the  proletariat,  that  the  more 
the  bourgeois  State  shall  have  already  accom- 
plished in  the  way  of  public  properties  with  its 
various  services,  so  much  the  easier  will  be  the 
task  of  the  expropriators. 

In  the  first  place  it  is  not  true  that  public 
property  results  from  the  private  industries  an- 
nexed by  the  bourgeois  State.  In  reverting  to 
the  present  State,  the  industries  do  not  lose  their 
character  of  capitalist  property,  that  is  to  say,  of 
property  from  which  the  working  class  is  ex- 
cluded. From  the  property  of  such  or  such  a 
capitalist,  they  become  the  property  of  the  entire 
capitalist  class. 

In  the  second  place,  the  extension  of  public 
services  adds  a  direct  increase  to  the  bourgeois 
forces.  The  more  industries  the  bourgeois  State 
concentrates,  the  more  individuals  it  binds  to 
itself  and  interests  in  its  preservation,  if  we  in- 


INTRODUCTION  53 

elude  merely  those,  who,  favored  with  better  pay 
or  higher  station,  must  fear  any  change  as  a  leap 
into  the  unknown. 

Moreover,  the  progress  of  statization  indirectly 
fortifies  the  enemy,  by  weakening  the  working 
class,  whose  movements  it  paralyzes. 

Who  is  less  free  than  the  State  laborer?  Against  the 
State,  no  struggle, — I  do  not  say  possible  to  win,  but 
possible  to  engage  in.  The  strike  is  without  doubt 
nothing  but  a  petty  war.  It  can  not  lead  to  emancipa- 
tion, because,  not  touching  the  principle  of  wages,  it 
can  not,  even  if  victorious,  do  more  than  ameliorate 
the  condition  of  the  wage-workers,  in  a  word,  lighten 
their  chains. 

But  the  strike  is  an  excellent  field  for  manoeuvres : 
it  creates  at  once  labor  solidarity  and  labor  organiza- 
tion. It  is  a  veritable  school  of  war.  And  from  this 
school  of  war  is  excluded  all  that  part  of  the  proletariat 
which  the  State  immobilizes  in  its  workshops.  With 
the  State  for  employer,  the  worker  is  doubly  enslaved, 
because,  held  by  his  stomach,  he  is  equally  held  by  his 
collar.  The  closed  shop  re-enforces  itself  with  the  open 
prison,  not  to  take  into  account  that  the  State,  with  no 
bankruptcy  to  fear,  in  the  case  of  persistent  working- 
class  demands,  has  no  economic  reason  for  yielding. 

Under  these  conditions,  far  from  pushing  for 
the  establishment  of  new  public  services,  the 
proletariat  ought  to  urge  the  suppression  of  the 
public  services  that  exist.  So  decided  the  Con- 
gresses of  Havre  and  of  Roanne,  inscribing  in 
the  program  of  the  Parti  Ouvrier  the  following 
article :  Operation  of  State  factories  to  be  en- 
trusted to  the  laborers  who  work  in  them. 


54  INTRODUCTION 

Let  the  Bismarcks  and  the  bourgeois  republi- 
cans strive  on  the  contrary  to  multiply  what  they 
call  public  services ;  they  are  in  their  proper  role. 
So  are  the  opportunist  leaders  who,  inside  the 
socialist  movement  to  exploit  it,  have  never  seen 
in  it  anything  but  a  roundabout  way  to  impose 
themselves  upon  the  bourgeoisie  and  to  get  politi- 
cal offices  for  themselves ;  but  the  Parti  Ouvrier, 
that  is  to  say,  the  class-conscious  party  of  our 
proletariat,  will  remain  faithful  to  its  watch- 
word : 

"The  revolution  first,  that  is  to  say,  the  political 
and  economic  expropriation  of  the  capitalist  class ; 
the  public  services  aftenvards,  because,  only  after 
the  fusion  of  classes  into  one  class,  that  of  the 
producers,  will  services  really  public  be  possible." 

It  is  quite  evident  that  socialism  thus  presented 
is  clearly  distinguished  from  statism. 

Far  from  pushing  to  their  development  certain 
organs  and  functions  of  the  State,  under  its  pres- 
ent form,  it  opposes  all  transformation  of  private 
monopolies  into  State  monopolies,  all  extension 
of  public  services  within  the  structure  of  capi- 
talist society;  and  even  today,  we  see  the  Guesd- 
ists,  and  generally  the  strict  Marxians,  remaining 
more  or  less  faithful  to  this  line  of  conduct. 

Thus  for  example  in  France  the  socialists  who 
follow  Jules  Guesde  pronounced  formally,  in  1909, 


INTRODUCTION  55 

against  the  redemption  of  the  West  State  railway. 

But,  in  the  democratic  countries  at  least,  the 
socialist  parties  for  the  most  part  have  departed 
or  tend  to  depart  from  their  old  uncompromising 
attitude. 

They  approve  the  immediate  monopolization  or 
nationalization  of  certain  industries.  They  urge 
the  seizure  of  the  railroads,  the  mines,  the  sugar 
or  petroleum  refineries.  They  have  given  over 
waiting  for  the  revolution  to  be  first  accomplished, 
before  proceeding  to  partial  extensions  of  the  col- 
lective domain,  and  thenceforth,  one  may  well  in- 
quire of  himself  whether  there  can  still  be  a  ques- 
tion of  speaking  of  socialism  versus  the  State, — 
whether  one  ought  not  to  admit  on  the  contrary 
that,  little  by  little,  democratic  socialism,  sliding 
over  a  dangerous  precipice,  tends  to  become  a 
State  socialism. 

It  is  this  that  we  propose  to  examine,  inquiring 
in  what  measure,  under  the  pressure  of  events, 
the  primitive  conception  of  Marxism  is  being 
modified,  or  must  be  modified,  on  these  two 
essential  points : 

1.  The  conquest  of  political  power  by  the 
proletariat  ; 

2.  The  transformation  of  present  society  into 
a  "great  economic  co-operative  by  the  socialisa- 
tion of  the  means  of  production." 


Socialism  Versus  the  State 


PART  ONE 
The  Conquest  of  Political  Power 
The  idea  of  the  proletarian  conquest  of  politi- 
cal  power  presents   itself,   at   its   origin,   under 
very  simple  forms. 

This,  for  example,  is  how  Engels  describes  at 
once  the  goal  and  the  means  of  the  revolution 
which  the  socialist  proletariat  is  to  accomplish : 

Anarchy  in  social  production  will  be  replaced  by  the 
social  and  systematic  regulation  of  production,  taking 
into  account  the  needs  of  the  community  as  well  as  of 
each  particular  individual ;  the  mode  of  capitalist  appro- 
priation in  which  the  product  enslaves  first  its  producer, 
then  also  its  consumer  will  give  way  to  a  mode  of  dis- 
tribution solidly  founded  on  the  nature  of  the  modern 
means  of  production :  on  the  one  hand,  direct  social 
appropriation  as  means  of  maintaining  and  developing 
production ;  on  the  other  hand,  direct  individual  appro- 
priation as  means  of  existence  and  enjoyment. 

The  capitalist  mode  of  production,  by  progressively 
transforming  the  great  majority  of  the  people  into 
proletarians,  creates  the  force  which,  under  penalty  of 
death,  is  constrained  to  accomplish  this  revolution.  By 
progressively  transforming  the  principal  means  of  pro- 
duction into  State  property,  it  indicates  unmistakably 
the  means  for  accomplishing  this  revolution.  The  pro- 
letariat grasps  the  power  of  the  State,  and  first  of  all 
transforms  the  means  of  production  into  State  property. 

57 


Y 


58  SOCIALISM    VERSUS   THE   STATE 

By  that  act,  it  abolishes  itself  as  proletariat,  it  abolishes 
all  class  distinctions  and  class  antagonisms,  and  at  the 
same  time  also  it  abolishes  the  State  as  State. 

We  see  that,  in  Engels'  thought,  the  conquest 

of  political  power  by  the  proletariat,  that  is  to  say, 

the  social  revolution,  requires  for  its  realization 

two  preliminary  conditions : 

1.  The  proletarianisation  of  the  great  mass  of 
the  population; 

2.  Political  action  by  the  proletarian  class,  with 
a  view  to  grasping  the  power  of  the  State,  thus 
becoming  the  ruling  class. 

Of  these  two  conditions,  the  former  does  not 
depend  on  the  will  of  the  workers.  Without  capi- 
talism, no  proletariat,  and  without  proletariat,  no 
socialism ;  consequently,  the  first  question  which 
arises  is  to  know  whether,  really,  in  the  most 
advanced  countries,  the  proletariat  constitutes,  or 
tends  to  constitute,  "the  great  majority  of  the 
population." 

It  would  be  going  outside  the  limits  of  this 
study  to  justify,  by  complete  statistical  evidence, 
our  affirmative  answer  on  this  point. 

We  have  done  this  elsewhere,1  and,  for  the  rest, 
the  great  industrial  census  reports  of  recent  years 
prove  that  in  all  the  countries  where  capitalist 
production  prevails,  the  number  of  wage-workers 


1 E:     Vandervelde,     Le     Collectivisme     et     revolution     ln- 
dustrielle.     Paris,  Bibliotheque  socialiste. 


THE    CONQUEST   OF   POLITICAL    POWER  59 

is  increasing  at  the  expense  of  the  independent 
producers. 

Even  in  a  country  like  France,  where  the  small 
bourgeoisie  is  still  deeply  rooted,  the  official  sta- 
tistics of  1906  estimates  that,  in  the  active  popu- 
lation, 20,000,000  in  round  numbers,  there  are  no 
more  than  8,300,000  proprietors  (men  and 
women)  against  11,700,000  wage- workers, — about 
two  proprietors  to  three  laborers,2  and  the  pro- 
portion of  the  latter  tends  to  increase. 

Much  more  is  this  so  in  Germany,  where  capi- 
talist evolution  is  far  more  accentuated.  One 
may  judge  from  the  following  figures : 

Active  Population  in  Commerce,  Manufactures, 
Agriculture 

Employers  Wage-workers  Proportion 

1882 5,191,000  11,013,000  2.1 

1895 5,474,000  13,438,000  2.5 

1907 5,490,000  19,127,000  3.5 

The  number  of  proprietors,  then,  remains  sta- 
tionary; the  number  of  wage-workers  increases 
rapidly,  and  if  the  proletarianization  of  the 
laborers  is  not  equally  marked  in  all  countries, 
there  are  some,  even  at  present,  like  Saxony, 
Belgium,  England,  where  one  of  the  two  pre- 
liminary conditions  for  the  conquest  of  political 
power  is  already  realized :  the  great  majority  of 

2  Introduction,  par  M.  Fontaine,  aux  Conferences  faites  ft 
l'Ecole  des  Hautes  Etudes  sociales  sur  la  concentration  dea 
entreprises  industrielles  et  commerciales.    Paris,  Alcan,  1913. 


60  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

the  people  is  composed  of  proletarians,  manual 
or  intellectual. 

As  for  the  other  condition,  it  is  enough  to  open 
one  of  the  periodical  Bulletins  of  the  International 
Socialist  Bureau  to  be  convinced  that  wherever 
capitalism  is  deeply  rooted,  there  exists  hence- 
forth, under  the  names  of  social-democracy, 
socialist  party,  Parti  Ouvrier,  Labour  Party,  etc., 
an  organization  composed  mainly  of  proletarians 
who,  following  the  ideas  of  Marx  and  Engels, 
take  for  their  goal  the  conquest  of  the  State  by 
the  political  action  of  the  working  class. 

That  this  political  action  may,  or  must,  at  a 
given  moment,  take  a  revolutionary  form,  using 
this  word  in  the  sense  of  a  resort  to  force, — most 
socialists,  if  not  all  socialists,  admit. 

But  in  practice  this  does  not  prevent  them  from 
being  unanimous  in  the  opinion : 

1.  That  the  proletariat  should  strive  to  obtain 
universal  suffrage  applying  to  all  elections,  with 
political  liberties  to  make  possible  its  normal 
functioning. 

2.  That  it  should  use  the  ballot,  in  order  to 
penetrate  the  local,  provincial  or  national  as- 
semblies with  as  many  delegates  as  possible. 

The  establishment  or  the  complete  extension  of 
universal  suffrage  is  evidently  no  longer  more 
than  a  question  of  time.    It  has  lately  been  estab- 


THE  CONQUEST  OF  POLITICAL  POWER  6l 

lished  in  Holland  and  Roumania.  It  will  be  to- 
morrow in  Belgium,  and  after  what  has  come 
about  in  Germany,  where  the  Kaiser  himself  pro- 
claims the  necessity  of  doing  away  with  the  Prus- 
sian electoral  system,  no  one  doubts  that  within 
a  few  years  democracy  will  triumph  in  all  coun- 
tries of  European  civilization ;  in  law,  if  not  in 
fact,  the  "sovereignty  of  the  people"  will  be  com- 
plete ;  the  ancient  thrones  will  no  longer  exist, 
unless  in  the  form  of  decorative  survivals ;  we 
shall  see  a  general  extension  of  the  system  already 
existing — with  "conservative  guarantees"  whose 
importance  will  diminish — in  France,  in  England, 
in  the  United  States,  in  the  English  colonies, 
Australia  or  South  Africa. 

But  it  is  not  enough  to  have  the  ballot.  There 
is  also  need  of  the  knowledge  and  power  to  use 
it.  Now  it  is  precisely  in  the  countries  where  the 
ancient  thrones  have  most  completely  disappeared, 
where  the  forms  of  democracy  are  most  com- 
pletely realized,  that  the  gravest  doubts  arise  as 
to  the  efficacy  of  political  action  and  the  possi- 
bility for  the  proletariat  of  achieving  by  this 
method  the  conquest  of  power. 

Who,  in  fact,  in  the  countries  where  purely 
democratic  forms  exist,  so  to  speak,  would  ven- 
ture to  characterize  as  false  this  description  of 
modern  political  evolution  given  by  Ostrogorski 


62  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

in  "La  Democratic  et  les  Partis  Politiques,"  a 
book  admirably  fortified  with  references  to 
original  sources: 

Going  back  to  the  starting  point,  we  see  the  State  in 
the  hands  of  a  class,  and  society,  incarnated  in  this 
ruling  class,  dominating  the  individual  by  overwhelming 
him  with  all  the  weight  of  social,  religious  and  political 
convention.  But  this  triple  tyranny  yields  and  declines 
under  the  pressure  of  multiple  forces  of  a  moral  and  a 
material  order.  The  enthusiasm  of  religious  faith, 
which  discloses  itself  to  itself,  the  critique  of  reason 
which  asserts  itself  triumphantly,  the  new  engines  of 
industry, — all  unite  to  free  the  individual  from  his 
bonds.  The  autonomous  individual  is  finally  proclaimed 
sovereign  in  the  State,  and  jealous  of  his  new  power, 
he  seeks  to  gather  directly  to  himself,  as  to  their  source, 
all  relations  of  public  order,  constitutional  as  well  as 
extra-constitutional.  But,  singular  phenomenon,  the 
more  he  advances  the  more  he  seems  again  to  ap- 
proach his  point  of  departure. 

In  fact,  we  observe  that  the  role  of  the  individual  in 
the  State  is  reduced  to  a  very  small  thing:  he  exercises 
but  the  shadow  of  the  sovereignty  so  pompously  and 
hypocritically  ascribed  to  him ;  he  has,  in  reality,  no 
power  over  the  choice  of  the  men  who  govern  in  his 
name  and  by  his  authority ;  the  Government  is  a 
monopoly:  it  is  in  the  hands  of  a  class  which,  without 
forming  a  caste,  constitutes  a  group  apart  in  society; 
often  it  is  exercised  by  one  man  who  leans  on  this 
class  and  enjoys  the  power  of  an  autocrat  despite  the 
republican  forms  of  the  State.  This  yoke  is  borne  by 
the  great  mass  of  society  with  indifference  and  pass- 
ively, as  in  the  former  time  when  it  was  forbidden  to 
concern  itself  with  public  affairs  under  penalty  of  being 
treated  as  in  rebellion.  The  Government  is  put  at  the 
disposal  of  private  interests  in  their  enterprises  against 
the  general  interest;  legislation  and  administration  are 


THE  CONQUEST  OF  POLITICAL   POWER  63 

bought  and  sold ;  public  offices  themselves  are  virtually 
put  up  at  auction. 

Under  such  conditions,  democracy  appears  as 

an   empty    form,   to   which   the   capitalist   class 

adapts  itself  as  readily  as  to  systems  of  restricted 

suffrage. 

The  causes  of  this  situation  are  only  too  easy  to 
determine :  ignorance,  credulity,  passivity  of  the 
masses  of  the  people  ;  corruption  practiced  by  pro- 
fessional politicians ;  resistance  opposed  by  the 
rigid  structure  of  the  traditional  parties  to  the 
birth  and  development  of  new  political  forma- 
tions ;  demoralizing  influence  of  a  cheap  press, 
sold  out  to  capitalism ;  direct  action  of  the 
bourgeois  State  on  the  functionaries  who  depend 
on  it,  on  the  children  and  young  people  who  re- 
ceive its  instruction,  on  the  soldiers  shut  in  its 
barracks,  on  the  faithful  members  of  the  churches 
which,  in  the  interest  of  social  conservation,  it 
subsidizes. 

But  all  these  causes  themselves  carry  us  back, 
on  final  analysis,  to  a  fundamental  cause ;  this  is, 
that  in  our  democracies,  even  more  than  in  coun- 
tries less  developed  politically  and  economically, 
the  real  power  belongs  to  the  kings  of  finance,  of 
industry,  of  the  great  landed  property,  and  that, 
for  the  moment,  the  beginnings  toward  the  con- 
quest of  political  power  by  the  proletariat  are  but 


64  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

a  trifle  in  presence  of  the  achievement  of  the 
conquest  of  the  public  powers  by  the  capitalist 
class. 

How,  by  what  means,  has  this  conquest  been 
made  and  how  is  it  maintained?  That  is  what 
we  shall  show,  drawing  our  examples  especially 
from  the  three  great  democracies  of  the  con- 
temporary world,  the  United  States,  England  and 
France. 

We  shall  next  inquire  whether,  in  the  very 
hypothesis  that  the  proletariat,  in  spite  of  the 
means  of  resistance  of  the  capitalist  class,  suc- 
ceeded in  winning  the  majority,  this  victory  would 
not  be  rendered  inoperative  by  the  bankruptcy 
of  parliamentarism,  the  present  decadence  of 
which  seems  to  presage  its  final  burial. 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  CAPITALIST  CONQUEST  OF  THE  PUBLIC  POWERS 

In  most  countries,  the  establishment  of  uni- 
versal suffrage  has  been  the  result,  either  of  an 
insurrectional  movement,  as  in  France,  or  of  a 
proletarian  effort  characterized  by  demonstra- 
tions, riots  or  political  strikes,  as  in  Belgium, 
Sweden,  Austria  and  England. 

Suddenly  the  bourgeoisie,  until  then  solely  in- 
vested with  the  ballot,  saw  itself  despoiled  of  its 
privilege.  A  flood  of  new  voters,  belonging  to 
all  classes,  submerged  the  landholding  minority, 
and  then,  in  the  industrial  countries  at  least,  this 
problem  confronted  the  rulers :  How  take  con- 
trol of  universal  suffrage?  How  arrive  at  this 
result,  paradoxical  in  appearance,  that  in  an  elec- 
toral body  where  the  class  interest  of  the  majority 
of  the  citizens  is  to  emancipate  themselves  from 
capitalist  rule,  this  rule  shall  be  more  than  ever 
maintained  and  sometimes  even  consolidated? 

Certainly,  to  realize  this  conquest,  the  capitalist 
minority  has  been  obliged  to  reckon  with  other 
classes,  to  seek  the  alliance  of  the  peasants  and 
little  bourgeois,  to  give  its  politics  at  least  the 

65 


66  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

appearance  of  democracy,  to  interest  in  its  plans 
the  prestige  and  the  political  influence  of  the 
churches,  and  to  increase  by  all  methods  the  action 
of  the  "social  authorities"  upon  the  masses.  But 
all  this  would  not  have  sufficed  if  the  masses 
themselves  were  not,  in  normal  times,  stubbornly 
conservative,  instinctively  hostile  to  all  change, 
profoundly  respectful  of  the  established  order. 

This  is  what  Ibsen  has  shown  in  a  gripping 
way  in  his  "Enemy  of  the  People,"  and  this  is 
what  an  English  publicist,  Mr.  Buchan,  declared 
with  undisguised  satisfaction  in  an  article  in  the 
Fortnightly  Review  (November,  1913),  "Democ- 
racy and  Representative  Government" : 

Everyman  is  a  pretty  sagacious  fellow.  He  is  not 
the  neurotic  being,  living  in  a  whirl  of  elementary 
emotions,  that  some  would  have  us  picture  him.  He 
is,  as  a  rule,  much  wiser,  much  more  steadfast  than 
his  official  interpreters.  He  has  no  jealousy  of  the 
State,  but  on  the  other  hand  he  has  no  morbid  craving 
for  its  attentions.  He  is  not  a  doctrinaire,  and  he  is 
eminently  practical.  I  know  him  in  my  capacity  as  a 
tradesman  offering  him  wares,  and  I  have  the  utmost 
respect  for  his  good  sense.  If  you  present  him  with 
fantastic  schemes  of  change,  he  will  be  apt  to  reply 
as  the  Highlander  replied  to  a  certain  Commission, 
which  offered  him  a  holding  if  he  was  prepared  to  keep 
some  thirty  official  commandments — he  declined  on  the 
ground  that  he  could  have  the  whole  Kingdom  of 
Heaven  for  keeping  ten.  At  the  same  time,  he  is  no 
anarchist,  he  is  an  obedient  soul,  and  he  has  a  strong 
respect  for  all  reasonable  laws.    In  his  heart  of  hearts, 


CAPITALIST  CONQUEST  OF  PUBLIC  POWERS     67 

as    Lord    Hugh    Cecil    once    said,    he    is    "profoundly 
unrevolutionary." 

Of  all  the  "conservative  guarantees"  that  the 
partisans  of  the  present  social  system  can  ask 
against  democracy,  assuredly  none  is  more  effi- 
cacious than  this  conservatism,  this  hatred  of  the 
new,  in  the  masses.  Nevertheless,  we  willingly 
recognize — and  but  for  this  we  should  be  indiffer- 
ent to  universal  suffrage — that  from  the  instant 
when  an  important  fraction  of  the  proletariat  be- 
comes conscious  of  its  class  interests,  the  bour- 
geoisie can  no  longer  count  exclusively  on  these 
moral  factors,  determined  as  they  are  by  the 
economic  conditions  of  the  past. 

So  it  puts  into  operation,  with  increasing 
energy,  the  various  means  of  influence  at  its  dis- 
posal, whether  upon  the  electors  or  upon  those 
elected  by  universal  suffrage. 

1.    Action  Upon  the  Voters 

By  the  very  fact  of  their  wealth  the  possessing 
classes  have  at  their  disposal  a  series  of  means  of 
influence  whose  relative  importance  varies  in  the 
different  countries.  Chief  among  these  are:  cor- 
ruption, direct  or  indirect;  pressure  exercised  on 
voters  by  employers,  landlords,  charitable  institu- 
tions, or  again  even  by  the  State ;  the  permanent 
action  of  the  press;  the  methodical  organization 
of  voting  masses,  under  the  form  of  parties,  dis- 


68  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

posing  of   considerable   resources    furnished   by 
the  master  class. 

(a)     Corruption 

"To  represent  the  Belgian  people,"  said  the 
newspaper  L'Independance  of  June  19,  1908,  "it 
is  not  necessary  to  have  either  intelligence  or 
knowledge ;  it  is  necessary  to  have  money.  This 
is  stupid,  it  is  revolting,  it  is  shameful,  but  it  is 
so.    The  facts  are  there." 

We  are  tempted  to  take  this  statement  literally 
when  we  see  that  in  Belgium,  and  still  more  in 
other  countries,  in  spite  of  the  poor  forming  the 
great  majority,  almost  all  the  deputies  are  rich, 
or  at  least  well-to-do. 

Nevertheless,  it  would  be  a  serious  and  unde- 
served insult  to  the  poor  if  we  were  to  attach 
excessive  importance  to  direct  corruption.  We 
may  take  it  for  granted,  on  the  contrary,  that 
most  people,  in  most  districts,  are  not  influenced 
by  gifts  or  promises  of  money  or  food. 

In  Belgium,  and  in  France,  a  few  districts  can 
be  named,  but  only  a  few,  where  notoriously  con- 
sciences are  for  sale. 

In  England,  where  formerly  corruption  was  a 
constant  plague  of  political  life,  the  two  traditional 
types  of  electoral  corruption,  bribery  and  treat- 
ing, no  longer  have,  since  the  extension  of  the 
franchise,   the   same   development   as    formerly. 


CAPITALIST  CONQUEST  OF  PUBLIC  POWERS      69 

There  are  districts,  especially  in  the  "cathedral 
cities,"  where  votes  are  bought  at  a  tariff  ranging 
from  one  shilling  to  ten.  Often,  also,  beer  is 
offered  at  a  reduced  price,  on  the  eve  of  elections. 
But  on  the  whole,  these  rudimentary  forms  of 
corruption  no  longer  play  any  considerable  role. 
They  have  given  way  to  more  disguised  processes, 
which  agree  better  with  improved  manners  and 
the  vast  extension  of  the  electoral  body :  presents 
are  made  to  cities,  gifts  to  all  sorts  of  religious, 
charitable  or  sporting  institutions  ;  "smoking  con- 
certs," amusements,  picnics,  dances,  "primrose 
league  feasts"  are  organized ;  all  this  costs  dearly 
and  is  within  the  reach  of  none  but  rich  men  or 
rich  parties ;  but  it  is  hard  to  maintain  that  this  is 
corruption  properly  so-called.1 

In  fact,  the  buying  of  votes,  or  distributions  of 
beer  and  wine  are  not  practiced  wholesale  and 
have  no  real  influence  except  in  a  few  rotten 
boroughs,  in  certain  localities  where  receivers  of 
charity  are  particularly  numerous,  and  in  coun- 
tries where,  as  in  the  United  States,  the  condi- 
tions of  political  and  social  life  are  more  favor- 
able than  elsewhere  to  the  development  of  cor- 
ruption. 

Before  the  civil  war  there  were  in  the  United 


1  Ostrogorski,  La  D6mocratie  et  les  Partis  politiques,  edi- 
tion 1912,  p.  217  and  following. 


70  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

States  only  three  or  four  cities,  headed  by  New 
York,  in  which  money  was  used  to  buy  votes. 
But  after  the  war,  the  increasing  violence  of 
party  spirit  and  the  extraordinary  development  of 
the  spoils  system  made  the  corruption  of  voters 
a  regular  practice.  The  rapid  growth  of  the 
cities,  inevitably  accompanied  by  the  development 
of  the  proletariat  and  also  of  a  semi-criminal 
class,  the  arrival  of  miserable  emigrants  from 
Europe  and  the  extension  of  suffrage  to  the 
Negroes,  had,  on  their  side,  increased  the  venal 
contingents.  The  entry  upon  the  political  stage 
of  the  trusts,  and,  in  general,  of  the  great  indus- 
trial and  financial  interests,  which  sought  to  select 
for  their  own  convenience  the  legislative,  admin- 
istrative and  judicial  officers,  contributed  largely 
to  furnish  the  necessary  funds  for  the  purchase 
of  votes. 

In  many  parts  of  the  Union,  the  electoral  customs 
are  pure  enough,  but  in  many  others  corruption  is 
permanently  established.  And  what  is  remarkable  and 
somewhat  surprising  is  that  the  cities  are  not  the  only 
or  even  the  principal  home  of  corruption.  Even  in 
the  contaminated  cities,  corruption  is  not  always  indi- 
vidual, they  Buy  the  "workers,"  the  petty  "leaders,"  who 
exercise  an  irresistible  influence  over  a  certain  number 
of  poor  voters  and  make  them  vote  according  to  their 
command  without  paying  them  regularly  the  price  of 
their  votes.  The  parties  often  obtain,  almost  in  the 
same  manner,  the  votes  of  the  members  of  the  labor 
unions :  the  leaders  "sell  out"  to  the  parties,  without 


CAPITALIST  CONQUEST  OF  PUBLIC  POWERS      71 

the  laborers  suspecting  it.  The  city  electors  who  sell 
their  votes  deliberately  belong,  for  the  most  part,  to 
the  dregs  of  the  population.  The  most  shameless  ven- 
ality is  often  found  in  the  rural  districts,  notably  in 
New  England,  inhabited  by  the  descendants  of  the 
Puritans.  Votes  are  sold  there  openly  as  at  market; 
they  are  quoted  regularly  at  fixed  prices.  And  it  is 
not  merely  the  wretchedly  poor  who  traffic  in  their 
votes,  but  very  comfortable  farmers,  of  American  stock, 
pious  people  who  go  to  church  every  Sunday.  In  some 
rural  districts,  a  quarter  or  a  third  of  the  electors  sell 
their  votes.     (Ostrogorski.) 

Note,  however,  that  in  recent  years  things  have 
improved,  due  to  the  electoral  reform  assuring 
secret  voting,  known  as  the  Australian  Ballot. 

The  public  market  for  votes  held  in  New  York 
and  other  large   cities  has   disappeared.     Good 
order  prevails  at  elections.    In  certain  places,  the 
parties  agree  to  abstain  from  corrupt  practices. 
(b)     Coercion 

There  is  perhaps  no  country  where,  on  the  day 
after  an  electoral  battle,  the  vanquished  parties  do 
not  attribute  their  defeat  to  acts  of  coercion  of 
which  the  adversary  is  guilty. 

In  Belgium,  for  example,  the  parliamentary 
annals  are  full  of  such  accusations. 

Whether  it  is  a  question  of  municipal  or  of 
legislative  elections,  liberals  and  catholics 
mutually  accuse  one  another  of  having,  by  illicit 
means,  influenced  the  votes  of  their  laborers,  their 
tenants,  or  again  of  unfortunates  receiving  public 


72  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

or  private  charity,  or  finally  of  employes  and 
functionaries  dependent  on  them. 

Such  doings,  certainly,  can  have  no  great  effect 
in  the  cities,  but  it  is  otherwise  in  certain  indus- 
trial neighborhoods  where  a  big  employer  makes 
the  laws,  and  especially  in  the  rural  districts. 

Nothing  is  more  sadly  instructive  on  this  sub- 
ject than  the  debate  that  occurred  in  the  Belgian 
Chamber  in  July,  1912,  on  the  validity  of  the  elec- 
tions in  the  district  of  Nivelles.  A  liberal  deputy, 
M.  Jourez,  had  described  in  these  impressive 
terms  what  he  called  "landlord  pressure" : 

In  this  sort  of  fraud,  there  is  no  outlay  on  the  part 
of  the  corruptor.  It  is  enough,  for  him  who  would 
dictate  how  men  shall  vote,  to  have  or  even  merely  to 
be  administering  landed  property,  and  finally,  to  add 
to  these  rare  gifts  a  little  audacity. 

This  system  of  fraud,  moreover,  is  practiced  in  an 
interesting  little  world  of  which  a  few  words  need  to 
be  said.  It  is  not  a  rich  world,  often  poor,  still 
attached  to  its  native  soil,  resisting  the  seduction  of 
the  city  octopus.  Like  his  father  and  often  his  grand- 
father, the  little  cultivator  lives  on  his  land,  which 
does  not  belong  to  him,  but  which  he  considers  some- 
what as  if  it  did.  Never  or  very  rarely  does  he  hear 
of  the  real  master,  that  is  of  the  proprietor,  whom  he 
knows  slightly  if  at  all.  He  thinks  of  him  only  at  the 
feast  of  Saint  Andre,  when  leases  are  signed.  If  he 
attends  to  his  business,  this  date  will  trouble  him  little. 
But  the  time  that  the  master  of  the  land  reveals  him- 
self (understand  of  course  that  this  master  is  of  the 
clerical  party)  is  on  election  day.  This  day  has  often 
been  a  tragical  one  for  people  bound  to  the  land,   for 


CAPITALIST  CONQUEST  OF  PUBLIC  POWERS      73 

it  is  then  that  the  proprietor  or  his  agent  looms  up 
before  the  little  tenant  and  tells  him:  "Today  you  have 
to  choose  between  your  interests  and  what  your  con- 
science dictates,  you  are  going  to  vote  as  I  think  best 
and  as  I  wish,  or  I  will  take  your  land  away.  You  will 
have  to  leave  this  land  on  which  you  were  reared,  where 
your  forefathers  have  lived." 

And  then,  this  unfortunate  who  thinks  of  his  wife 
and  of  his  children  whom  he  must  feed,  while  perhaps 
professing  a  political  opinion  contrary  to  that  of  his 
landlord,  bows  before  this  will  stronger  than  his.  He 
hides  deep  down  in  his  heart  his  feelings  of  revolt.  He 
marches!  But  if  his  conscience  is  stronger  than  his 
interests,  it  resumes  its  rights  to  liberty,  and  then, 
because  he  refuses  to  be  enslaved,  and  does  not  march, 
they  crush  him.     (Annates  parlementaires,  1912,  p.  185.) 

These  facts  were  scarcely  contested  by  the 
opponents  of  M.  Jourez.  They  merely  replied 
that  the  liberals  acted  in  the  same  way,  that  they 
bought  land  to  lease  it  to  the  electors  who  voted 
right,  and  that  on  the  whole  they  were  as  little 
qualified  as  possible  to  pose  as  defenders  of  the 
liberty  of  the  weak. 

We  do  not  propose  to  inquire  as  to  the  extent 
of  the  truth  in  these  reciprocal  accusations.  In 
such  matters,  legal  proof  is  generally  difficult  to 
find,  and,  moreover,  acts  of  direct  and  punishable 
coercion  are,  on  the  whole,  a  very  small  thing 
compared  with  the  indirect  and  non-punishable 
pressure  exercised  in  all  countries  by  the  heads 
of  industries,  the  landlords,  the  superintendents 
of  charity  bureaux,  the  members  of  charitable 


74  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

societies,  and  the  high  officials,  over  the  people 
who  become  dependent  on  them. 

Consider,  indeed,  the  enormous  percentage  rep- 
resented in  the  electoral  body  by  laborers  who 
would  have  trouble,  in  case  of  dismissal,  to  find 
another  job,  by  tenant  farmers  who  are  afraid 
of  losing  their  holdings  when  their  leases  expire, 
or  who  have  no  written  lease,  by  unfortunates 
who  find  themselves  in  the  power  of  the  overseers 
of  the  poor  or  of  the  visitors  from  the  Catholic 
charitable  societies,  and  by  government  employes 
and  officials  whose  advancement  is  subject  to  the 
good  pleasure  of  their  superiors.  Perhaps  this 
does  not  go  to  the  point  of  forbidding  them  to 
vote  as  they  like, — something  which  the  secret 
ballot  may  render  difficult,  if  not  impossible, — 
but  they  are  forbidden  to  go  into  politics,  or  to 
receive  certain  newspapers,  or,  if  they  have  a  little 
tavern,  to  put  rooms  at  the  disposal  of  propa- 
gandists of  the  party  they  might  prefer;  and  alto- 
gether, it  is  possible  thus  to  crush  in  the  egg — 
wherever  these  influences  are  not  counteracted — 
any  movement  which  might  tend  to  emancipate 
the  workers. 

What  this  dependence  of  the  poor  may  be,  espe- 
cially in  rural  districts  where  the  clergy  and  the 
landed  proprietors  work  together,  may  be  judged 
by  this  extract   from  a  pamphlet  written  by  a 


CAPITALIST  CONQUEST  OF  PUBLIC  POWERS      75 

Belgian  Catholic,  in  the  form  of  an  open  letter 
to  Mgr.  Mercier,  cardinal  archbishop  of  Malines : 

When  oppression  results  from  the  fraternal  accord 
of  the  ecclesiastical  authority  with  the  powers  of  gold, 
with  the  armies  of  the  land  and  of  the  feudal  past,  that 
is  the  regime  of  Pharisaism. 

In  no  part  of  Belgium  has  this  lamentable  league  of 
the  castle  and  the  altar  produced  more  disastrous  con- 
sequences than  in  the  province  of  Namur,  where  the 
Administration  is  resolutely  theocratic.  Here  it  is 
systematically  based  on  servitude.  Here  the  money- 
lenders of  the  Powers  dictate  their  sovereign  wills  to 
their  beneficiaries,  who  are  but  persons  interposed,  the 
pensioners  of  the  system.  Everything,  public  or  private, 
that  attempt  a  show  of  resistance,  is  boycotted  and 
despoiled  administratively  of  its  most  sacred  rights :  it 
is  outlawed.  Pitiless  demands  are  made  on  the  small 
and  the  humble,  by  the  same  title  and  by  the  same 
means  of  pressure,  with  the  practice  of  religion,  homage 
to  the  priest,  and  low  servilities,  homage  to  the  lord  of 
the  manor.  Nowhere  is  the  poor  more  despised  and  the 
worker  less  honored.1 

All  who  know  our  country  districts  will  recog- 
nize the  truth  of  this  picture. 

(c)     The  Press 

"In  a  democracy,"  said  Montesquieu,  "institu- 
tions are  worth  no  more  than  the  public  opinion 
that  controls  them." 

Now  public  opinion  is,  in  great  part,  made  by 
the  press,  and  except  in  a  few  countries  where  a 
powerful  labor  organization  exists,  the  press  is 


1  Stephane,  Le  Projet  Poullet,  p.  24.     Bruxelles,  Lebfigue, 
1913. 


76  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

almost  wholly  in  the  hands  of  the  capitalist  class. 

Formerly,  a  newspaper  was  an  enterprise  essen- 
tially political.  Certain  men  associated  themselves 
for  the  defense  of  an  idea  or  for  the  conquest 
of  power.  They  founded  a  daily,  an  instrument 
of  propaganda  or  combat.  They  did  not  seek  to 
make  profits  from  the  sale  of  their  sheet.  Jour- 
nalism had  nothing  in  common  with  business. 

Within  some  thirty  years,  all  has  changed.  No 
doubt,  there  are  always  some  political  papers,  de- 
pending more  or  less  on  party  organizations,  but 
more  and  more  we  see  the  development  in  all 
countries  of  a  new  press,  cheap  and  widely  cir- 
culated. It  declares  itself  "independent,"  but  it 
is  really  the  servant  of  the  business  men  who 
direct  it,  own  it  or  subsidize  it. 

Here  again  we  observe,  as  far  as  power  is  con- 
cerned, an  apparent  democratization  of  the  organs 
of  opinion,  and  an  actual  seizure  of  these  by  the 
plutocracy. 

This  evolution  was  long  ago  accomplished  in 
the  United  States.  It  has  even  provoked  such 
scandals  that  the  influence  of  the  press  tends  to 
decrease,  and  the  intellectual  leadership  has 
passed,  for  the  "better  element,"  to  the  magazines 
and  the  weekly  and  monthly  reviews. 

It  would  certainly  be  exaggerating  to  claim 
that  the  situation  was  as  bad  in  England,  where, 


CAPITALIST  CONQUEST  OF  PUBLIC  POWERS      77 

however,  within  the  last  few  years  most  of  the 
newspapers  have  been  bought  by  financiers  or 
syndicates  of  wealthy  men,1  but  it  is  perhaps  in 
France  that  the  abuses  are  most  flagrant,  and  the 
organization  of  the  press  most  detestable.  De- 
laisi,  in  "La  Democratic  et  les  Financiers,"  2  and 
with  more  precision  and  exactness  Andre  Mori- 
zet,  in  a  pamphlet  published  in  1912,  "Why  We 
Need  a  Powerful  Press,"  have  clearly  shown  in 
fact,  that  lacking  a  maximum  sale,  as  in  the  case 
with  almost  all  radical  sheets,  or  by  reason  of 
expenses  so  high  that  no  sale,  however,  enormous, 
could  cover  them,  as  is  the  case  with  the  great 
newspapers — most  French  journals  are  obliged, 
in  order  to  live,  to  count  on  their  "publicity,"  to 
accept  secret  funds,  to  assist  in  floating  the  securi- 
ties of  the  big  banks,  not  to  speak  of  unclean 
messes  such  as  receiving  subsidies  for  undertak- 
ing private  campaigns,  masked  under  a  pretext 
of  public  utility  or  patriotism,  or  better  still  to 
maintain  a  silence  as  of  the  tomb  on  questions 
that  an  honest  press  ought  to  raise. 

It  is  easy  to  imagine  what,  under  these  condi- 
tions, must  be  the  influence  upon  universal  suf- 
frage of  a  press  which,  to  quote  the  words  of 
Jaures  on  the  N'Goko  Sanga  scandal,  "through 


1  Ostrogorski,  edition  of  1912,  p.  182. 

2  Page  145  and  following. 


78  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

the  organs  of  all  parties  strikes  the  same  note  at 
the  same  hour,  discredits  or  exalts  the  same  enter- 
prises, and  pushes  all  opinions  like  a  flock  o.f 
sheep  along  the  same  road." 

This  influence,  which  is  still  enormous,  would 
be  limitless,  if  the  public  had  not  learned  to  mis- 
trust the  tendency  campaigns  of  the  "big  papers," 
and  if,  despite  the  insufficiency  of  their  circula- 
tion, the  labor  and  socialist  papers  were  not 
sometimes  in  a  position  to  check  them.  It  should 
be  added  that,  in  many  countries,  and  notably  in 
France,  the  press  of  the  smaller  cities,  less  con- 
taminated, possesses  a  political  influence  greater, 
perhaps,  than  the  press  of  the  capital. 

(d)  The  Methodical  Organization  of 
the  Voting  Masses 
Aside  from  the  people  who  are  bought,  in- 
timidated or  deceived,  there  are  others  who  are 
enrolled  in  the  traditional  parties,  and  who  conse- 
quently remain  faithful  to  them,  through  habit, 
through  conservatism,  through  fear  also  that  the 
creation  of  new  parties  might  help  their  oppo- 
nents. This  in  part  explains,  for  example,  the 
survival  in  the  United  States  of  two  parties,  two 
"machines,"  which  differ  very  little  in  their  pro- 
grams, and  which  are  both  made  up  of  elements 
absolutely  heterogeneous. 


CAPITALIST  CONQUEST  OF  PUBLIC  POWERS      79 

The  same  situation,  under  other  forms,  exists 
in  France,  where  the  political  labels — republican, 
radical,  radical-socialist,  independent  socialist — 
have  little  meaning. 

It  is  the  same,  although  to  a  less  degree,  in 
England,  where  Ostrogorski  characterizes  in 
these  terms   the   degeneracy   of   the   two   great 

Scarcely  distinguishable  from  each  other  by  their 
principles  and  by  their  methods,  the  parties  contend, 
first  and  last,  for  power.  Their  leaders,  some  of  whom 
are  men  of  great  talent  and  executive  ability,  can  not 
nevertheless  act  like  statesmen,  even  if  they  have  it  in 
them;  they  have  not  and  can  not  have  a  definite 
harmony  of  ideas,  nor  a  determined  and  consecutive 
policy.  Their  supreme  concern  is  momentary  party 
advantage.  Their  programs  are  constructed  above  all 
for  the  needs  of  the  war  that  the  parties  wage  on  each 
other;  apart  from  the  problems  really  arising  from  the 
national  life,  others  are  introduced  in  order  to  play 
with  them,  head  or  tail.  The  current  phrase  "the  party 
game"  is  in  fact  a  key  to  the  predominant  character  of 
their  combats.  Not  that  the  leaders  and  their  partisans, 
the  great  majority  at  least,  lack  convictions  and  sin- 
cerity, but  the  eager  pursuit  of  party  success  disguises 
them  so  well  that  often  it  is  impossible  to  distinguish 
whether  this  success  is  a  means  or  an  end. 

Under  these  conditions,  it  is  inevitable  that  to 
win  success,  the  parties,  reduced  in  a  way  to  the 
status  of  machines,  substitute  for  the  propaganda 
of  ideas  the  processes  of  advertising  which  are 
used  in  the  business  world.  But  these  advertising 
processes  come  high.    It  is  necessary  to  put  up. 


80  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

on  all  the  walls  of  the  city  or  the  country  districts, 
innumerable  posters,  to  print  and  carry  to  the 
homes  professions  of  political  faith,  circulars, 
portraits,  biographies,  to  have  a  newspaper  to 
defend  their  ideas  and  insult  their  adversaries,  to 
hold  meetings,  rent  halls,  support  a  whole  army 
of  ward  workers,  bill  posters,  and  electoral 
agents. 

Delaisi1  estimates  the  average  expense  of  an 
election  in  France  at  50,000  francs.  In  England 
and  the  United  States  it  costs  more,  since,  inde- 
pendently of  election  expenses  properly  so  called, 
campaign  advertising  plays  a  part  much  more 
considerable  and  ever  increasing.  For  some  time, 
Ostrogorski  tells  us,  the  campaign  period  in  Eng- 
land has  been  marked  by  a  veritable  poster  de- 
bauch. It  is  a  sort  of  steeplechase,  between  the 
rival  candidates,  as  to  who  shall  cover  and  recover 
the  most  walls  with  posters.  The  more  numerous 
a  candidate's  posters,  the  greater  is  the  impression 
he  produces  upon  the  crowd.  If,  on  the  contrary, 
a  candidate  wearies  of  the  game,  it  must  be  sup- 
posed that  he  has  lost  confidence  in  his  cause,  or, 
which  is  more  serious,  that  he  has  exhausted  his 
bank  roll.  And  naturally,  these  posters  are  much 
less  for  instructing  and  convincing  the  voters  than 

1  La  Democratic  et  les  Financiers. 


CAPITALIST  CONQUEST  OF  PUBLIC  POWERS      81 

to  stun  them,  to  hypnotize  them,  to  give  them  the 
illusion  of  power  and  superior  numbers. 

In  the  United  States,  as  every  one  knows,  it  is 
worse  still. 

To  manifest  enthusiasm,  or  to  provoke  it,  the 
"workers"  of  the  different  parties  resort  to  an 
assortment  of  methods  which  they  themselves 
designate  under  the  name  of  "the  Chinese  busi- 
ness": mass  meetings,  with  musical  interludes, 
fireworks,  torchlight  processions,  cavalcades  with 
horses  and  bicycles,  aquatic  parades  with  hun- 
dreds of  vessels  ranged  in  file,  and  processions 
where  sometimes  more  than  100,000  men  march 
past  some  high  personage  of  the  party,  headed 
by  the  candidates  themselves,  with  music,  flags 
and  banners. 

It  goes  without  saying  that  campaign  advertis- 
ing, when  it  reaches  such  proportions,  is  possible 
only  for  the  parties  supported  by  very  rich  people. 
And  naturally,  these  subsidize  only  parties  from 
which  they  have  something  to  expect  for  the 
defense  of  their  class  interests  or  even  their 
private  interests. 

The  role  played  in  France  by  the  great  com- 
mittees of  Paris  is  well  known,  for  example  the 
famous  "Comite  Mascuraud";  or  again  in  Eng- 
land, the  brewers,  who  are,  with  the  great  landed 
proprietors,  the  principal  support  of  the  Conserv- 


82  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

ative  party,  while  the  newly-rich,  aspiring  to 
nobility,  are  the  most  generous  contributors  to 
the  funds  of  the  Liberal  party. 

In  the  United  States,  the  dependence  of  the 
politicians  on  capitalism  is  still  more  flagrant. 

Gifts  from  private  persons,  Ostrogorski *  tells  us, 
furnish  a  very  considerable  part  of  the  campaign  funds. 
In  most  cases,  this  is  pure  speculation,  an  investment 
of  money  which,  later  on,  may  return  much  in  the  way 
of  favors.  The  representatives  of  the  big  industrial  or 
financial  interests,  the  corporations  or  the  individual 
capitalists,  by  a  heavy  contribution  to  the  campaign 
funds,  obtain  a  sort  of  mortgage  on  future  administra- 
tion or  legislation.  The  sums  given  by  corporations, 
secretly  be  it  understood,  for  the  presidential  campaigns 
of  1896-1904,  furnished  an  enormous  corruption  fund 
which  was  duly  expended.  It  is  estimated  that  in  1896 
the  national  Republican  chairman  had  at  his  disposal  a 
war  chest  of  $7,000,000;  in  1900,  $3,500,000;  in  1904, 
$3,000,000. 

The   revelations   made   after  the   presidential 

campaign  of  1904  excited  public  opinion  against 
contributions  from  corporations.  Laws  were 
enacted.  The  scandal  itself  was  a  healthy  sign. 
The  last  presidential  campaigns  were  conducted 
more  scrupulously.  But  the  interests  at  stake  are 
too  considerable  for  the  ruling  classes  to  omit 
employing,  more  or  less  openly,  the  means  of 
action  at  their  disposal  for  influencing  voters. 

To  recapitulate,  the  possessing  minorities  have 
powerful  methods,  legal  or  illegal,  to  neutralize 

1  Page  473. 


CAPITALIST  CONQUEST  OF  PUBLIC  POWERS      83 

or  turn  in  their  favor  the  "force  of  numbers." 
They  have  on  their  side  tradition,  the  prestige  of 
"social  authorities,"  experience  in  affairs,  the 
superiority  of  knowing  how.  They  hold  the  poor 
through  the  church,  through  the  school,  through 
the  charitable  societies,  by  a  thousand  ties  of 
interest  or  fear.  They  can  boycott  the  merchants 
who  think  evil,  discharge  the  laborers  who  make 
a  show  of  independence,  evict  the  tenants  who 
dare  oppose  them.  They  have  an  all-powerful 
press.  They  dominate  the  old  parties,  which 
need  their  money  to  live  on.  And,  under  these 
conditions,  wherever  these  methods  of  control  are 
not  checked  by  powerful  labor  organizations,  they 
preserve,  under  the  system  of  universal  suffrage, 
almost  the  same  preponderance  as  under  the 
system  of  restricted  suffrage. 

But,  in  proportion  as  their  traditional  influence 
decreases,  they  are  obliged  to  resort  to  cruder 
or  more  dishonest  methods  to  maintain  their 
dominance. 

On  the  one  hand,  corruption  and  coercion, 
direct,  and  especially  indirect,  play  a  role  more 
or  less  important ;  on  the  other  hand  certain 
bourgeois  parties,  although  worn  out,  decom- 
posed and  made  up  of  heterogeneous  elements, 
make  up  for  their  lack  of  a  program  by  their 
art  in  opportunism  and  in  the  machinery  of  or- 


84  SOCIALISM   VERSUS  THE  STATE 

ganization.  Speaking  of  England,  where,  how- 
ever, the  political  manners  still  pass  as  relatively 
good,  Ostrogorski  sketches  this  picture,  by  no 
means  flattering,  of  the  political  contests: 

All  the  party  activity  culminates  in  a  campaign  less 
for  persuading  than  for  hypnotizing  the  voters;  it  is 
nothing  but  a  continuous  appeal  to  the  emotions.  All 
the  methods  employed  are  a  general  conspiracy  against 
the  credulity  of  the  voters ;  the  parties  compete  in 
devices  to  surprise  their  innocence  with  falsehoods  that 
would  choke  a  trooper,  with  slanderous  insinuations  in 
words  and  pictures,  with  appeals  to  covetousness  or 
fear,  or  by  the  vulgar  display  of  corruption  pure  and 
simple.  The  captured  voters  are  led  to  the  polls  like 
cattle,  and  victory  is  awarded  not  to  the  parties  with  the 
highest  principles  and  the  most  beneficent  laws  to 
their  credit,  but  to  those  with  the  most  automobiles 
at  their  disposal. 

The  author  declares,  it  is  true,  that  the  entrance 
on  the  field  of  the  Labour  Party  has,  within  the 
limits  of  its  action,  improved  these  customs.  But 
this  action  has  as  yet  only  a  limited  reach,  and 
the  fact  remains  that,  in  the  present  state  of 
things,  in  spite  of  universal  suffrage,  in  spite  of 
the  "sovereignty  of  the  people,"  the  real  power 
in  the  electoral  body  belongs  generally  to  the 
rich. 

Moreover,  even  should  this  power  escape  them, 
they  can  re-conquer  it  by  acting,  no  longer  upon 
the  electors,  but  upon  the  elected. 


capitalist  conquest  of  public  powers     85 

2.    Action  Upon  Those  Elected 

Thanks  to  the  power  of  control  of  the  possess- 
ing classes  over  the  electors,  the  three  great 
democracies  of  the  western  world  are  governed 
by  bourgeois  parties. 

But  these  parties  call  themselves  radicals  or 
democrats.  They  are  obliged  to  reckon  with  the 
working  class.  It  is  sometimes  even  impossible 
for  them  to  form  a  parliamentary  majority  with- 
out the  representatives  of  the  proletariat.  To 
survive,  they  are  obliged  to  put  through  certain 
reforms,  to  repress  certain  abuses,  to  attack  cer- 
tain class  privileges,  and  no  doubt  they  would 
do  far  more  toward  equalizing  conditions  if,  to 
the  influences  that  capitalism  exercises  upon  the 
voters,  there  were  not  added  the  influences  that 
it  operates  upon  those  elected  and  upon  the 
governments. 

This  action,  naturally,  is  not  so  apparent.  It 
can  not  be  really  effective  without  disguising  it- 
self. Nevertheless,  its  results  can  be  guessed.  It 
is  discovered,  by  studying  the  relations  which 
exist  between  politics  and  industry  or  finance.  It 
is  seen,  too  often,  brought  into  the  light  of  day 
by  scandalous  affairs,  which  expose  the  cynicism 
of  the  capitalists  and  tarnish  the  reputation  of  the 
politicians. 


86  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

Moreover,  to  penetrate  this  underworld  of 
democratic  politics,  we  have  guides.  Here  again, 
Ostrogorski's  book  "La  Democratic  et  les  Partis 
politiques"  is  still  the  principal  source  of  informa- 
tion. But  it  can  be  supplemented  to  advantage 
by  these  two  other  books,  one  of  which  we  have 
already  quoted :  Delaisi,  "La  Democratic  et  les 
Financiers,"  for  France,  and  for  England :  Bel- 
lock  and  Chesterton,  "The  Party  System." 
a.     United  States 

After  having  shown  how  in  the  United  States 
the  bourgeois  parties,  dominated  by  the  money 
interests,  are  almost  always  directed  by  what  is 
called  the  "machine,"  a  hierarchy  with  mercenary 
foundations,  of  professional  politicians  headed  by 
a  "boss," — Ostrogorski  describes  in  these  terms 
the  action  of  the  machines — State  machines  or 
municipal  machines — upon  those  elected  by  uni- 
versal suffrage: 

In  every  legislative  assembly,  the  machine  "owns"  a 
certain  number  of  members  whose  election  expenses  it 
has  paid.  .  .  .  Some  legislators  sell  themselves. 
Others,  and  these  are  more  numerous,  honest  people 
from  country  districts,  yield  through  weakness. 

It  goes  without  saying  that  most  of  the  time 
the  "boss"  and  other  "wire  pullers"  and  poli- 
ticians are  themselves  merely  instruments  in  the 
hands  of  the  great  railroad  companies  and  other 
financial  or  industrial  corporations. 


CAPITALIST  CONQUEST  OF  PUBLIC  POWERS      87 

During  the  last  few  years  especially,  the  cor- 
rupted politicians  who  direct  the  political  ma- 
chines have  been,  in  a  way,  subordinated,  the 
retail  business  of  corruption,  without  being  sup- 
pressed, now  plays  only  a  secondary  role ;  above 
the  extra-constitutional  government,  which  holds 
the  parliamentary  or  municipal  assemblies  under 
its  sway,  stand  no  longer  the  boss  or  the  political 
ring,  but  the  magnates  of  high  finance  and  big 
business.  The  capitalist  conquest  of  the  public 
powers  is  complete,  as  may  be  judged  from  this 
summary,  made  by  Ostrogorski,  of  the  situation 
in  the  two  chambers  of  congress,  in  the  state 
legislatures  and  in  the  municipal  assemblies. 

1.  Congress.  In  the  Senate,  the  great  as- 
sembly of  the  States,  there  is  no  public  spirit. 
It  is  rather  a  vast  national  exchange,  with  sev- 
eral "corners,"  for  steel,  cotton,  lumber,  oil,  etc., 
with  astute  managers  and  adroit  solicitors  who 
have  charge  of  all  these  private  interests,  pre- 
occupied with  obtaining  certain  laws  or  with 
preventing  their  enactment.  Business  is  their 
object  and  business  methods  are  their  methods: 
the  legislative  state  is  conducted  on  the  principle 
"do  ut  des"  (I  give  that  you  may  give),  each 
interest  exacting  its  price  for  its  support  and 
obstructing  the  vote  until  it  receives  satisfaction. 

The   interests   are   not   represented   so   amply 


88  SOCIALISM   VERSUS   THE  STATE 

in  the  House  as  in  the  Senate ;  there  are  perhaps 
not  more  than  a  third  of  the  members  who  repre- 
sent private  "interests" ;  but  the  others  are  looked 
after  by  means  of  the  party  discipline  which 
makes  them  vote  with  their  eyes  shut. 

2.  State  Legislatures.  In  the  states  dominated 
by  the  machine,  and  these  are  precisely  the  richest 
and  the  most  advanced  in  capitalist  concentration, 
the  majority  of  the  members  of  the  legislature 
are  merely  the  damned  souls  of  the  "boss,"  and 
at  his  demand  they  docilely  grant  to  the  rich 
industrial  or  financial  companies  all  sorts  of 
franchises. 

3.  Municipalities.  The  municipal  councils  are 
as  a  rule  like  the  legislatures:  filled  with  men 
elected  by  the  corporation,  or  with  "boodle  alder- 
men," directly  bought  by  them,  they  engage  in 
the  same  exploits,  and  with  the  same  disastrous 
results  for  the  public  fortune. 

What  corruption  leaves  undone,  thoughtless- 
ness and  habits  of  waste  accomplish.  Affecting 
nearly  half  of  the  American  population  and  its 
most  important  interests,  the  administration  of 
cities  furnishes  the  specatacle  of  the  most  com- 
plete fisaco  of  selective  government  in  the  United 
States.  It  would,  however,  be  unjust  not  to  point 
out  that  in  recent  years  an  effort  has  been  made 
to  improve  the  administration  of  the  cities,  and, 


CAPITALIST  CONQUEST  OF  PUBLIC  POWERS      89 

in  a  general  way,  to  give  deliberative  assemblies 
a  more  healthful  atmosphere. 

In  the  course  of  the  presidential  campaign  of 
1912,  President  Wilson  made  certain  interesting 
statements  on  this  subject: 

The  people  of  the  United  States  have  made  up  their 
minds  to  do  a  healthy  thing  for  both  politics  and  big 
business.  .  .  .  They  are  going  to  open  doors ;  they 
are  going  to  let  up  blinds;  they  are  going  to  drag  sick 
things  into  the  open  air  and  into  the  light  of  the  sun. 
They  are  going  to  organize  a  great  hunt,  and  smoke 
certain  animals  out  of  their  burrows.  They  are  going 
to  unearth  the  beast  in  the  jungle  in  which  when  they 
hunted  they  were  caught  by  the  beast  instead  of  catching 
him.  They  have  determined,  therefore,  to  take  an  axe 
and  raze  the  jungle,  and  then  see  where  the  beast  will 
find  cover.    .    .    .* 

No  doubt,  those  are  the  words  of  a  candidate, 
to  which  it  would  be  wrong  to  attach  too  much 
importance.  Nevertheless  the  tendency  exists. 
Impartial  observers — I  have  in  mind  for  example 
President  A.  Lawrence  Lowell  of  Harvard  Uni- 
versity 2 — call  attention  to  it  and  hold  that  the 
Europeans  may  exaggerate  the  organic  disorders 
of  American  legislative  bodies. 

But  on  the  other  hand  they  do  not  and  cannot 
fail   to   recognize  that  at  the  present  time  the 


1  Woodrow  Wilson,  The  New  Freedom.    New  York,  Double- 
day,  Page  &  Co.,  1918,  p.  116. 

2  Lowell,  Public  Opinion  and  Popular  Government,  p.  139, 
New  York,  Longmans,  Green  &  Co.,  1913. 


90  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

great  corporations  exercise  a  formidable  influence 
over  the  representative  bodies,  by  the  innumerable 
berths  they  can  offer  the  relatives  and  friends 
of  the  "boss"  and  of  the  politicians  dependent  on 
him. 

(b)     England 

In  a  country  like  England  which  has  political 
traditions  and  well-established  social  divisions, 
the  action  which  the  money  power  can  exercise 
upon  the  legislative  and  governmental  personnel 
is  not  so  direct,  not  so  brutal,  and  on  the  other 
hand,  not  so  necessary. 

The  Conservative  party,  when  it  is  not  in  the 
majority,  has  at  its  disposal  a  powerful  minority, 
singularly  keen  to  defend  its  class  interests.  The 
Liberal  party  would  be  condemned  to  impotence, 
if  the  rich  men  who  form  its  right  wing  refused 
their  support.  And  in  these  two  great  bourgeois 
parties,  the  organization  is  so  oligarchic  that 
the  American  methods  for  operating  on  public 
opinion  have  not  the  same  reasons  for  existence. 

But  what  they  do  not  do,  dare  not  do,  could 
not  do  directly,  they  do,  to  a  certain  extent, 
indirectly. 

There  seems  to  be  no  doubt,  in  fact,  that,  espe- 
cially in  the  Liberal  party,  many  members  of 
parliament  find  themselves  more  or  less  depend- 


CAPITALIST  CONQUEST  OF  PUBLIC  POWERS      91 

ent  upon  the  big  capitalists  who  provide  the 
party  funds. 

Through  what  mechanism? 

To  understand  this,  one  should — allowing  for 
evident  exaggerations — read  the  curious  little 
book  by  Bellock  and  Chesterton.1 

To  believe  our  two  authors — and  Ostrogorski 
in  his  large  work  arrives  at  practically  the  same 
conclusions — modern  England  is  not  governed, 
as  would  appear,  by  the  House  of  Commons,  but 
by  a  group,  or  rather  two  groups,  of  directors — 
the  "front  benches" —  who  organize  the  govern- 
ment, under  the  supreme  authority  of  the  "lead- 
ers,"' assisted  by  their  "whips." 

To  whom  has  passed  (they  ask)  the  power  of  the 
House  of  Commons?  To  a  political  committee  for 
which  there  is  no  official  name  (since  it  acts  in  secret), 
but  which  may  be  called  the  Front  Benches.  This 
committee  is  not  named  by  vote,  by  acclamation,  or  even 
by  tacit  consent.  Its  members  do  not  owe  their  posi- 
tion to  the  will  of  the  House  nor  to  the  will  of  the 
nation.  It  is  chosen  by  a  process  of  co-optation,  and, 
for  the  most  part,  among  the  rich  politicians  and  their 
creatures.  It  forms,  in  reality,  a  single  body,  and  when 
its  interests  or  its  power  are  at  stake,  acts  like  a  single 
man. 

Assuredly,  the  "front  benches"  do  not  wield 

absolute  power.    They  must  take  account  of  the 

aspirations  of  the  masses,  of  the  wishes  of  their 

party,  of  the  opinions  of  the  "rank  and  file"  of 


1  The  Party  System.     London,  1910. 


92  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

their  colleagues.  But  over  these  last  at  least  the 
leaders  exercise,  through  the  intermediary  of  the 
whips,  a  considerable  influence,  not  always  rest- 
ing solely  on  moral  factors. 

Elections,  in  fact,  cost  dear,  and  the  local 
organizations  of  the  parties  are  generally  poor. 
To  hold  a  seat  in  the  House  involves  very  heavy 
expenses,  even  today  when  members  receive  a 
salary. 

Under  these  conditions,  labor  members  aside, 
there  are  but  three  types  of  men  who  can  nor- 
mally enter  the  House  of  Commons :  first,  the 
rich  men  of  a  certain  locality,  who  can  indemnify 
the  local  organizations ;  second,  rich  men  from 
outside,  who  can,  by  reason  of  the  liberality  ex- 
pected from  them,  get  themselves  accepted  by 
the  Central  Committee  of  the  party ;  lastly,  people 
relatively  poor,  who  consent  to  be  more  or  less 
the  servants  of  the  party  and  receive  subsidies 
to  a  greater  or  less  extent  from  the  central  treas- 
ury to  defray  their  election  expenses. 

Now,  the  secret  funds  which  keep  this  chest 
filled  are  at  the  complete  disposal  of  the  leaders, 
thus  providing,  in  some  sort,  a  material  basis  for 
their  authority.  These  funds,  which  they  some- 
times try  to  increase  by  speculations  more  or 
less  licit,  come,  for  the  most  part,  from  the  rich 
members  of  the  party.    But  it  is  rarely  that  these 


CAPITALIST  CONQUEST  OF  PUBLIC  POWERS      93 

donors  are  moved,  or  solely  moved,  by  enthusiasm 
for  the  good  cause.  They  are  more  or  less  inter- 
ested in  assuring  to  themselves  recognition  from 
the  supreme  organizations  of  the  party. 

The  money  given  is  for  them  an  investment. 
Some  expect  "safe  seats"  in  the  House,  others 
honorific  titles :  that  of  knight,  baron  or  even 
peer.  The  others,  finally,  like  the  great  brewers 
who  energetically  support  the  Conservative  party, 
count  on  the  support  of  their  political  co-religion- 
ists, for  the  defense  of  their  interests. 

In  what  measure  do  these  pecuniary  interven- 
tions act  upon  those  elected  ?  This  is  rather  hard 
to  say,  and  certainly  nothing  happens  in  England 
that  resembles,  even  remotely,  the  scandalous 
scenes  sometimes  enacted  in  certain  legislatures 
of  the  United  States.  But  the  least  to  be  said  is 
that,  the  Conservative  party  being  by  definition 
the  party  of  the  status  quo,  the  dependence  of 
the  Liberal  party  on  a  few  rich  men  makes  it 
timorous,  retards  its  march  on  the  path  to  demo- 
cratic or  social  reforms,  and,  on  the  whole,  Ostro- 
gorski  seems  to  pass  an  equitable  judgment  on 
English  politics  when  he  writes: 

While  making  the  greatest  possible  allowance  for 
reservations  and  extensions,  ...  we  arrive  at  the 
conclusion  that  the  Government  of  England,  taken  as 
it  is  with  conflicting  social  and  plutocratic  influences, 
with  its  system  of  organized  parties,  with  the  supremacy 


94  SOCIALISM   VERSUS  THE  STATE 

of  executive  power  and  the  crushing  bureaucracy,  is 
not  a  government  truly  popular.  It  is  a  democracy 
directed  by  an  oligarchy. 

(c)     France 

Of  all  the  great  countries  of  Europe,  France 
is  undeniably  the  one  whose  institutions  approach 
nearest  to  the  democratic  ideal. 

All  Frenchmen  past  the  age  of  twenty-one  are 
voters.  The  deputies,  elected  by  a  majority  of 
the  votes,  levy  taxes,  make  laws,  control  the  acts 
of  the  Government,  and  can,  by  a  vote  of  censure, 
overthrow  it.  The  Senate,  that  great  council  of 
the  communes  of  France,  has  itself  an  origin 
more  or  less  democratic.  The  President  of  the 
Republic  is  a  temporary  constitutional  sovereign, 
who  reigns  for  seven  years,  but  does  not  govern. 

It  seems  under  these  conditions  that  nowhere 
should  popular  sovereignty  be  so  effective.  From 
the  social  viewpoint  however,  there  are  few  as- 
semblies so  conservative  as  this  Parliament  of 
the  Third  Republic,  which  will  have  been  the 
last  in  Europe  to  establish,  under  pressure  of 
war,  the  progressive  income  tax. 

Sir  Charles  Dilke,  speaking  one  day  of  I  know 
not  what  politician  of  his  country,  whom  he  re- 
proached with  being  systematically  hostile  to 
every  reform  measure,  said  to  me, — "He  is  as 


CAPITALIST  CONQUEST  OF  PUBLIC  POWERS      95 

conservative  as  a  French  radical."  And  in  fact 
many  of  the  deputies  who  sit  in  the  Palais- 
Bourbon  on  the  benches  of  the  Left — whether 
they  are  called  socialists,  radical-socialists,  radi- 
cals, democrats  or  progressives — have  this  in 
common,  that  their  politics  is  essentially  respect- 
ful toward  everything  that  touches  income,  indi- 
vidual property,  or  capitalist  monopolies. 

This  conservatism  of  the  self-styled  radical 
parties  is  due,  of  course,  in  great  part,  to  the 
fact  that  France  is  an  agricultural  country,  that  a 
majority  of  the  voters  are  proprietors,  that  the 
Revolution,  by  dividing  the  land,  interested  mil- 
lions of  peasants  in  the  maintenance  of  the  order 
which  it  estalbished. 

But  these  peasants,  despite  their  numerical  and 
social  importance,  are  not  the  real  masters  of 
France. 

In  this  country,  where  the  greater  capitalism  is 
less  developed  than,  for  example,  in  England  or 
Germany,  its  influence  over  the  government  is 
perhaps  greater  than  anywhere  else,  because  it 
meets  less  opposition. 

The  Bank  of  France,  the  Credit  Foncier  (land 
bank),  the  railroad  companies,  the  captains  of 
industry  are  not  only  economic  powers,  but  poli- 
tical powers,  which  dominate  the  apparent  mas- 
ters of  the  democracy. 


96  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

It  is  what  Lamartine  already  foresaw  in  1838 
when  he  delivered  his  admirable  address  in  the 
Chamber  of  Deputies,  against  the  grant  of  rail- 
ways to  private  companies. 

There  is  a  sentiment  that  has  always  powerfully 
moved  me,  in  reading  history  or  in  observing  events; 
it  is  horror  of  corporations,  it  is  the  incompatibility  of 
sincere,  progressive  liberty  with  the  existence  of  corpo- 
rations in  a  State  or  in  a  civilization.  What  will  it  be, 
great  God!  when,  according  to  your  imprudent  system 
you  shall  have  established  into  collective  interests  and 
into  industrial  and  financial  corporations  the  innu- 
merable stockholders  of  the  five  or  six  billions  that  the 
organization  of  the  railroads  will  concentrate  in  the 
hands  of  its  companies. 

Change  the  tariffs  then?  But  how  will  you  change 
them?  By  the  law.  But  who  will  vote  the  law?  Stock- 
holders in  the  majority.  Take  over  the  lines  1  But  who 
will  vote  on  this?  Stockholders  again.  Then  establish 
rival  lines.  But  who  will  vote  for  these  lines?  Stock- 
holders in  the  majority.  Improve,  complete,  change 
the  systems  back  of  your  lines !  But  who  will  vote  on 
these  improvements  and  extensions,  demanded  perhaps 
by  the  general  interest  of  the  country?  Stockholders 
again.  That  is  to  say  that  you  are  mortgaging  forever, 
at  a  single  word,  all  competition,  the  future  product, 
the  future  improvements  of  your  entire  territory. 
Vainly  will  the  people  demand,  complain,  accuse  the 
authorities,  they  will  and  you  will  be,  for  quarter- 
centuries  or  half-centuries,  in  the  power  of  the  com- 
panies. To  them  you  will  subject  the  interests  of  the 
people  and  the  general  interests. 

Never,  perhaps,  has  social  prophecy  been  so 
completely  realized ;  and,  naturally,  what  Lamar- 


CAPITALIST  CONQUEST  OF  PUBLIC  POWERS      97 

tine  said  of  the  railroad  companies  applies, 
mutatis  mutandis,  to  the  other  great  corporations 
that  dominate  the  Republic. 

We  have  seen  that,  to  assure  this  administra- 
tion, the  capitalists  act  upon  the  electoral  body, 
either  having  themselves  elected  when  they  can, 
or  subsidizing,  without  much  regard  for  appear- 
ances, the  committees  of  politicians  that  offer 
them  guarantees. 

But  furthermore  they  act  directly  on  the 
deputies  and  the  Government. 

In  Delaisi 1  will  be  found  in  detail,  with  names 
to  confirm  it,  a  statement  of  the  means  employed 
to  have,  in  every  group,  liegemen  who  put  their 
influence  at  the  service  of  the  great  capitalist 
interests. 

Observe,  in  the  first  place,  apart  from  the 
deputies  of  business  properly  so  called,  who  were 
in  finance  or  industry  before  they  were  in  politics, 
a  certain  number  of  politicians  who  have  been 
bound  to  the  interests  by  admitting  them  to  one 
or  to  several  boards  of  directors. 

These  business  deputies  of  both  groups  are 
not  numerous ;  including  the  senators,  they  are  a 
hundred,  at  most,  in  the  two  Chambers.  But 
they  have  a  considerable  influence  over  their  col- 


1  La  Democratic  et  les  Financiers,  p.  76  et  s**- 


98  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

leagues  in  the  parliament.  It  is  easy  for  them  to 
make  places  in  the  offices  of  their  companies  for 
the  sons,  brothers,  nephews  or  cousins  of  their 
poorer  colleagues.  They  thus  make  for  them- 
selves in  all  parties  a  clientele  of  friends  ready 
to  pay  with  their  votes  and  to  carry  them  into 
power  when  the  moment  arrives. 

Next  come  the  deputies  or  senators  who  are 
corporation  lawyers.  Every  industrial  or  finan- 
cial corporation  must  have  close  at  hand  a 
General  Counsel,  who  gives  it  advice,  indicates 
methods  of  not  infringing  the  law,  when  delicate 
matters  are  concerned,  such  as  the'  formation  of 
combines,  trusts,  mergers  and  other  attempts  at 
monopoly,  and  who,  when  necessary,  plead  for 
them  in  the  courts.  These  functions  are  very 
well  paid.  There  is  usually  a  fixed  salary,  plus 
a  high  fee  for  each  case  in  court.  So  these 
positions  are  much  sought  after. 

Now,  for  the  last  fifteen  years,  the  great  indus- 
trial and  financial  corporations  have  been  taking 
their  attorneys  preferably  from  among  the  mem- 
bers of  parliament.  It  is  of  course  understood 
that  they  do  not  employ  the  deputy  or  the  senator, 
but  the  attorney,  and  if  when  the  case  comes  up, 
this  attorney,  depuy  or  senator,  adds  to  the  weight 
of  his  legal  talent  that  of  his  influence  with  the 


CAPITALIST  CONQUEST  OF  PUBLIC  POWERS      99 

government,  that  is  a  simple  coincidence  which 
only  evil  minds  will  criticise. 

Corporation  lawyers  and  capitalists,  moreover, 
form  only  a  small  part  of  the  total  number  of 
representatives.  But  they  are  generally  leaders. 
Their  experience  or  their  talent  adapt  them  for 
different  tasks.  In  executing  these,  they  demon- 
strate their  capacity  to  fill  cabinet  positions,  and 
after  a  few  tests,  if  nothing  happens  to  compro- 
mise or  discredit  them,  they  attain  to  power. 

Is  it  surprising,  in  view  of  this,  that  the  rulers 
of  the  Republic,  incapable  of  surviving  if  they 
had  the  Bank  and  the  press  against  them,  escape 
from  the  control  of  the  people  and  submit  to 
control  by  the  men  of  affairs? 

Anatole  France  once  asked  a  minister  the 
causes  of  governmental  powerlessness  in  the  mat- 
ter of  reforms. 

What  would  you  have  us  do  ? — was  the  reply — 
the  minister  of  finance  is  in  the  Credit  Lyonnais, 
the  minister  of  marine  is  in  the  Creusot  company, 
the  minister  of  war  is  in  the  "Commissions,"  etc. 

We  arrive  on  the  whole  at  the  conclusion  that 
everywhere,  in  modern  democracies,  the  real  sov- 
ereignty belongs  not  to  the  people,  but  to  parties 
dominated  by  the  money  power. 

To  remedy  this  situation,  the  dangers  of  which 


100  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

he  has  pointed  out  with  unusual  force,  Ostro- 
gorski  proposes  certain  purely  political  solutions, 
as  uncertain  as  they  are  insufficient. 

Is  not  the  solution,  he  says,  of  the  problem  raised  by 
parties  plainly  indicated?  Does  it  not  consist  in  elim- 
inating from  our  practice  the  use  of  rigid  parties, 
permanent  parties  having  power  for  its  end,  and  in 
restoring  and  reserving  to  the  party  its  essential  char- 
acter of  a  group  of  citizens,  especially  formed  in  viev) 
of  a  definite  political  demand? 

We  are  as  far  as  possible  from  this  opinion. 
True,  we  may  find  that  party  concerns  play  far 
too  considerable  a  role  in  our  societies ;  it  may  be 
useful,  as  a  counterpoise  to  this  exclusive  influ- 
ence, to  organize  groups  of  citizens  formed  with 
a  view  to  one  definite  demand.  But  how  can  one 
imagine  that  the  creation  of  leagues  of  this  kind 
would  suffice  to  put  an  end  to  the  reign  of 
plutocracy,  under  the  mask  of  party  govern- 
ments? The  fact  that  permits  capitalism  to 
dominate  the  democracies,  as  well  as  the  old 
governments,  is  that  "wealth  is  power." 

The  only  means  to  check  it,  and  as  a  final  result 
to  expropriate  it  politically,  is  to  oppose  to  its 
power,  to  oppose  to  the  old  parties  which  are 
merely  its  political  expression,  the  power  of  the 
proletariat  organized  as  a  class  party.  But  will 
this  power  itself  be  sufficient?    And  supposing  it 


CAPITALIST  CONQUEST  OF  PUBLIC  POWERS    101 

to  be  sufficient,  is  it  not  to  be  feared  that  the  con- 
quest of  political  power  may  be  vain  and  im- 
potent, by  reason  of  the  bankruptcy  of  parlia- 
mentarism ?    It  is  this  that  we  shall  now  examine. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE    BANKRUPTCY    OF    PARLIAMENTARISM 

Under  this  title,  a  few  years  ago,  innumerable 
articles  were  published,  and  even  those  that  at- 
tempted to  defend  the  parliamentary  system 
recognized  that  it  is  passing  through  a  crisis,  and 
ask  themselves  whether  it  will  survive  the  circum- 
stances which  gave  it  birth. 

In  February,  1912,  at  the  moment  when  the 
C.  G.  T.  in  France  was  particularly  aggressive, 
and  when  the  great  transport  workers'  strikes 
had  just  marked  the  advent  of  new  social  forces 
in  England,  the  Revue  Blcue,  of  Paris,  questioned 
a  certain  number  of  public  men, — Paul  De- 
schanel,  Maxime  Kowalewsky,  Virgile  Rossel, 
deputy  of  the  Swiss  National  Council,  and  Emile 
Vandervelde — on  the  probable  issue  of  the  con- 
flict, in  several  countries,  between  syndicalism 
and  parliamentarism. 

We  wish  to  reprint  here  the  critical  part  of  our 
reply,  on  the  subject  of  parliamentary  govern- 
ment. To  develop  it  would  be  useless.  It  deals 
with  facts  that  every  one  can  observe  daily. 

102 


THE  BANKRUPTCY  OF  PARLIAMENTARISM     103 

"What  is  this  parliamentary  government,  ar- 
rived at  the  fullness  of  its  developments? 

"It  is  the  system  of  government  which  has  as 
its  center  of  gravity  an  elected  assembly  the 
majority  of  which  makes  the  laws,  votes  the 
budgets,  decides — and  this  is  essential — the  fate 
of  the  ministers,  intervenes,  through  them,  in 
nominations  for  administrative  and  judicial 
offices, — which  possesses,  in  a  word,  all  the  sub- 
stance of  power,  apart  from  preserving,  as  forms, 
certain  traditional  institutions,  reduced  to  a  deco- 
rative status. 

"This  sovereign  assembly,  whether  divided  into 
two  Chambers  or  not,  is  composed  of  some  hun- 
dreds of  men,  who  for  the  most  part  owe  their 
election  to  their  local  influence,  their  fortune, 
their  popularity  on  good  or  bad  grounds,  rather 
than  to  their  knowledge  or  political  capacity, — all 
of  which  does  not  prevent  them  from  being 
omnipotent  and  thus  considered  omniscient. 
Having  to  pronounce  on  all  questions,  they  are 
presumed  to  know  them  all.  And  in  fact,  com- 
petent or  incompetent,  they  do  pronounce  on 
them,  whether  they  have  a  personal  opinion  more 
or  less  ripe,  or  whether  they  obey  the  order  of 
certain  leaders. 

"For  such  a  system  to  function,  without  result- 
ing in  bungling  and   impotence,  it  requires  an 


104  SOCIALISM   VERSUS  THE  STATE 

enlightened  electorate,  elected  representatives 
having,  with  a  healthy  moral  sense,  experience  in 
large  affairs,  an  executive  stabilized  by  party  dis- 
cipline, legislative  problems  not  too  numerous, — • 
in  short,  a  combination  of  conditions  such  as 
were  found  united,  for  the  greater  profit,  by  the 
way,  of  bourgeois  egoism,  at  the  time  of  the 
landlords'  regime,  under  Louis  Philippe  or 
Leopold  I.  So  it  should  not  be  surprising  that, 
on  the  continent,  their  reign  was  the  golden  age 
of  bourgeois  parliamentarism. 

"Today,  on  the  contrary,  is  the  iron  age.  We 
can  not  blind  ourselves  to  the  fact  that,  more  and 
more,  the  conditions  for  the  normal  working  of 
the  system  tend  to  disappear.  The  development 
of  the  functions  and  the  interferences  of  the 
State,  in  all  fields,  multiplies  indefinitely  the 
questions  to  be  solved,  without  any  proportionate 
increase  in  the  political  capacity  of  the  legislators. 
The  multiplication,  not  to  say  the  crumbling,  of 
parties  makes  more  difficult  the  establishment  of 
parliamentary  majorities  grouped  around  stable 
ministries,  and  these  difficulties,  judging  from 
the  example  of  Belgium,  will  only  increase  under 
proportional  representation.  The  elected  repre- 
sentatives, when  they  are  not  business  men  work- 
ing for  their  own  interests,  are  almost  wholly 
ignorant  of  all  the  complex  gearings  of  modern 


THE  BANKRUPTCY  OF  PARLIAMENTARISM     105 

society,  and  serve  the  popular  cause  only  by 
hollow  formulas  and  legal  phraseology.  Finally, 
the  electoral  body,  with  its  enormous  dead  weight 
of  illiterates  and  incapables,  justifies  only  too  well 
this  bitter  word  of  P.  J.  Proudhon :  'In  many 
cases  the  voters  under  universal  suffrage  have 
shown  themselves  inferior  to  the  landholding 
electors  of  the  July  monarchy.' 

"Certainly  the  machine  runs,  in  spite  of  every- 
thing, because  there  are  bureaux,  commissions  of 
specialists,  and  grand  councils,  which  eat  up  work 
for  the  legislature ;  then  there  is  the  press,  which 
supplements,  to  a  certain  extent,  the  flagrant  in- 
sufficiency of  the  budget  control ;  the  machine 
runs,  but  with  what  friction,  what  jerks,  what 
wastage  of  power,  and  also  what  deception  for 
the  popular  masses,  who  had  based  such  vast 
hopes  and  such  high  ambitions  on  universal 
suffrage. 

"Oppressed  by  this  deception,  they  do  not  see, 
they  do  not  wish  to  see  that  parliamentary  gov- 
ernment, with  all  its  faults,  constitutes  neverthe- 
less an  immense  progress  over  the  former  sys- 
tems ;  that  if  it  is  a  very  mediocre  instrument  of 
reform,  it  is  still  an  efficacious  means  for  prevent- 
ing the  abuses  of  power, — in  short  that,  in  the 
present  state  of  things,  if  it  did  not  exist,  we 
should  have  to  invent  it. 


106  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

"What  they  see,  and  how  could  they  fail  to 
see  it? — is  the  lost  time,  the  fruitless  bustle  of  the 
lobbies,  the  miserable  game  of  bidding  for  votes, 
the  flood  of  petty  neighborhood  questions,  the 
endless  babble  of  legislators  who  wish  to  show 
their  importance,  and,  inevitable  consequence,  the 
accumulation  of  unfinished  parliamentary  busi- 
ness, and  the  miscarriage  of  hoped-for  reforms. 

"True,  the  situation  is  not  equally  bad  in  all 
countries.  Remedies  can  be  found,  or  at  least 
palliatives.  But  the  fact  remains  that  parliamen- 
tary government,  which  was  equal  to  its  task 
when  it  was  merely  the  administrative  council  for 
the  affairs  of  the  bourgeoisie,  is  found  powerless 
to  solve  all  the  problems,  to  face  all  the  diffi- 
culties, that  arise  in  a  society  on  the  road  toward 
a  revolutionary  transformation. 

"So  no  one  should  be  surprised  that  the  work- 
ing class,  more  and  more,  understanding  that  it 
can  not  emancipate  itself  through  representatives, 
counts  before  all  else  upon  itself,  resorts  to  direct 
action  to  stimulate,  or  to  replace,  the  reformist 
activity  of  the  parliaments,  and,  especially  in  the 
countries  where  parliamentarism  has  attained  the 
maximum  of  discredit,  attaches  more  importance 
to  syndicalist  and  co-operative  action  than  to 
political  action." 


CHAPTER  III 

PROLETARIAN  ACTION 

Crisis,  decadence,  perhaps  bankruptcy  of  par- 
liamentarism ;  capitalist  conquest  of  the  public 
powers ;  control  by  the  possessing  classes  of  the 
electors  and  of  the  elected ;  such  are  the  results, 
all  too  apparent,  of  the  democratic  system  under 
its  present  form. 

On  this  statement,  the  democrats  and  the 
socialists,  or  at  least  such  of  them  as  refuse 
to  take  words  at  face  value,  are  in  accord  with 
the  opponents  of  democracy,  syndicalists  or  tra- 
ditionalists, like  Maurras,  Deherme,  or  Georges 
Sorel.1 

But,  it  must  be  said,  divergences  appear,  when 
it  comes  to  drawing  conclusions. 

We  naturally  pass  by  those  who  dream  of  re- 
versing the  machine,  of  substituting  for  elections 
that  form  of  lottery  called  hereditary  monarchy. 
For  choosing  the  most  competent  rulers,  we  fail 
to  understand  in  what  respect  the  chance  of 
generation  is  superior  to  the  chance  of  lottery. 


1  See  Guy-Grand,   "Le   Proc6s  de  la   Democratic."     Paris, 
Colin,  1913. 

107 


108  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

We  dismiss  likewise  those  who  would  graft 
upon  universal  suffrage  certain  "conservative 
guarantees,"  such  as  plural  voting,  which  would 
aggravate  instead  of  diminishing  the  already 
excessive  power  of  the  ruling  classes. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  whether  welcome  or 
otherwise,  every  one  understands  today  that 
wherever  universal  suffrage  exists,  and  it  exists 
almost  everywhere,  there  can  be  no  question  of 
suppressing  it.  But  if  it  can  not  be  suppressed, 
it  can  be  organized,  or  else,  which  is  by  no  means 
the  same  thing,  it  can  organize  itself. 

Those  who  wish  to  organize  universal  suffrage 
by  an  act  of  authority,  a  legislative  act,  are  advo- 
cates of  various  systems  designated  under  the 
name  of  representation  of  interests.  All  these 
systems  have  this  in  common,  that  they  are 
essentially  arbitrary,  that  they  consolidate  the 
positions  gained  by  the  possessing  classes,  that 
they  give  a  legal  sanction  to  the  division  of 
classes,  and  substitute  artificial  compartments 
for  the  spontaneous  groups  which  incessantly 
arise  from  the  transformations  of  the  social  life. 
They  do  not  constitute  progress.  They  are,  on 
the  contrary,  an  obvious  retrogression. 

But  if  we  do  not  admit,  if  we  will  not  at  any 
price   admit   that   universal    suffrage   should   be 


PROLETARIAN  ACTION  109 

organized  from  above,  we  are,  on  the  contrary, 
deeply  convinced  that  it  should  organize  itself. 

From  now  on,  it  is  striving  to  do  this.  In  all 
countries,  to  facilitate  the  elaboration  of  laws,  to 
aid  the  parliament  in  its  legislative  work,  con- 
sulting commissions  are  being  created,  where  the 
great  interests  can  be  advantageously  represented 
to  make  their  voices  heard,  when  once  the  final 
decision  rests  with  the  national  sovereignty.  On 
the  other  hand,  in  the  most  advanced  democ- 
racies, universal  suffrage  tends  to  replace  de- 
liberative assemblies  on  the  greatest  questions, 
through  direct  legislation.  The  representative 
system  continues.  The  parliamentary  system  is 
on  the  way  to  disappear. 

In  Switzerland,  for  example,  the  Federal 
Council  is  not  a  ministry.  It  makes  room  among 
its  members  for  the  minority.  It  does  not  resign 
when  its  propositions  are  rejected.  And,  at  least 
in  serious  questions,  if  the  National  Council  and 
the  Council  of  States  discuss  laws,  they  do  not 
make  them.  The  legislative  power,  first  and  last, 
belongs  to  the  people  themselves.  They  have  the 
right  of  initiative.  They  can  demand  the  ref- 
erendum. They  can  at  any  moment,  and  on  all 
questions,  substitute  themselves  for  the  delibera- 
tive assemblies. 


110  SOCIALISM   VERSUS  THE  STATE 

Such  institutions,  without  doubt,  have  the 
future  on  their  side. 

But  however  developed  and  however  perfect 
we  may  conceive  them  to  be,  they  would  still 
bring  nothing  but  disillusions  and  deceptions  to 
the  proletariat,  if  it  counted  upon  them  alone  to 
conquer  real  political  power. 

If  this  formidable  power,  the  capitalist  State, 
is  first  to  be  checked  and  later  to  be  abolished, 
it  is  not  enough  that  universal  suffrage  be  organ- 
ized. The  workers  must  organize  themselves 
under  universal  suffrage.  They  must,  by  the 
development  of  working-class  organization,  under 
all  its  forms,  create  a  State  within  the  State, 
whose  growing  power  tends  to  substitute  co- 
operative management  for  capitalist  domination. 

It  is  on  this  condition,  and  on  this  condition 
alone,  that  democracy  ceases  to  be  an  illusion  and 
a  lie. 

From  the  moment,  in  fact,  that  real  labor 
unions  exist,  they  can  through  their  organization 
oppose  an  effective  resistance  to  the  effort  of  the 
capitalists  to  buy,  intimidate,  deceive  and  organize 
the  voting  masses. 

In  the  second  place,  the  action  of  the  unions, 
and  to  a  less  degree,  of  the  other  groups,  fur- 
nishes them  the  means  for  exercising  from  with- 
out an  effective  pressure  upon  the  government. 


PROLETARIAN  ACTION  111 

Finally,  it  is  in  the  labor  organization  itself 
that  a  new  society  is  forming,  that  a  new  system 
of  law  is  being  elaborated,  and  that  the  proletariat 
is  acquiring  the  preparation  indispensable  for 
substituting  some  day  its  auto-direction  for  the 
rule  of  the  captains  of  industry  and  the  magnates 
of  capitalist  society. 

1.     Resistance  to  Capitalism 

There  is  on  the  whole,  at  the  present  time,  a 
single  political  system  in  all  the  nations  of 
western  civilization.  The  political  forms  are 
diverse  and  changing.  The  proportions  of  power 
among  the  classes  vary  according  to  the  industrial 
development  and  the  groupings  of  interests  aris- 
ing from  it.  The  condition  of  the  workers  is  not 
everywhere  equally  bad,  but  everywhere  the 
bourgeoisie  alone,  or  in  partnership  with  other 
classes  that  are  declining,  controls  the  govern- 
ment. It  controls  it  because  really,  economically, 
intellectually,  it  is  still  the  directing  class.  And 
that  will  not  change,  that  can  not  change,  until 
the  day  when  the  proletariat  shall  be  sufficiently 
organized,  economically  and  intellectually,  to  be 
in  a  position  to  substitute  social  production  for 
capitalist  production. 

Meanwhile,  it  is  all  very  well  to  be  the  most 
numerous  class,  to  have  the   right   to   vote,   to 


112  SOCIALISM   VERSUS  THE  STATE 

possess  the  theoretical  right  to  elect  the  parlia- 
mentary majority;  the  proletariat  does  not  use 
this  right,  and  if  by  any  impossible  chance  it  were 
to  use  it,  that  would  merely  give  the  world  the 
spectacle  of  its  impotence. 

If  moreover  it  had  any  inclination  to  stop 
voting  for  its  masters,  to  deprive  the  possessing 
minorities  of  the  support  which  they  need  in 
order  to  have  a  parliamentary  majority,  we  have 
seen  that  by  its  money,  by  its  press,  by  its 
"machine"  inside  the  traditional  parties,  the  bour- 
geoisie exercises  enormous  powers  of  influence 
upon  the  mass  of  the  voters. 

Under  these  conditions,  democracy  is  and  can 
be  only  a  vain  illusion,  so  long  as  the  proletariat 
remains  a  dust-heap  of  individuals. 

That  is  what  the  syndicalists  constantly  repeat, 
and  on  this  point  they  are  right.  Even  if  electoral 
and  parliamentary  action  alone  could  suffice  to 
realize  socialism — which  we  do  not  believe — this 
electoral  and  parliamentary  action  can  not,  in 
any  case,  be  effective  unless  the  working  class 
organizes  itself, — and  not  on  the  political  field 
alone. 

From  this  point  of  view,  the  Social-Democratic 
Party  of  Germany  had,  before  the  war,  given 
examples  from  which  we  might  have  expected  it 
to  take  a  better  attitude  at  the  hour  of  trial. 


PROLETARIAN  ACTION  113 

To  understand  this,  look  through  the  report  of 
the  Parteivorstand  at  the  Congress  of  Jena 
(1913).  At  that  time  there  were  nearly  a  million 
members  (982,850)  for  the  397  electoral  districts. 
The  receipts  of  the  central  organization  amounted 
to  1,469,000  marks;  the  expenditures  to  1,075,000 
marks.  Ninety  newspapers  were  under  the  con- 
trol of  the  party,  including  the  official  organ, 
Vorzvaerts,  with  157,000  subscribers.  The  cen- 
tral educational  bureau,  founded  seven  years 
earlier,  had  at  its  disposal  in  1913  for  courses 
and  meetings  more  than  700,000  marks.1  In 
short,  the  party  itself,  from  the  viewpoint  of 
financial  resources,  surpasses  all  the  bourgeois 
parties.  Its  press  can  compete,  in  number  of 
readers  and  in  wealth  of  information,  with  the 
capitalist  press.  Its  educational  works  are  at 
once  a  complement  and  a  corrective  to  the  pri- 
mary school.  And  if,  among  the  four  million 
voters  and  more  in  the  Social  Democracy,  there 
are  "Mitlaufer"  who  came  into  socialism  through 
a  simple  spirit  of  opposition,  still  perhaps  no- 
where else  can  be  found  so  many  men  with  a 
clear  and  precise  idea  of  the  final  aim  to  pursue. 
Moreover  this  party  organization,  without  an 
equal  in  the  word,  would  not  have  had,  even  from 


1  Bericht  des  Parteivorstandes  an  dem  Parteitag  zu  Iena. 
Berlin,  Vorwaerts,  1913. 


114  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

the  political  viewpoint,  the  power  that  it  pos- 
sessed, if  the  great  co-operatives  of  consumption 
affiliated  with  the  wholesale  co-operative  at  Ham- 
burg, or  the  Frcie  Gezverkschaftcn,  the  independ- 
ent unions,  with  their  2,500,000  adherents,  not  to 
speak  of  the  compulsory  insurance  groups,  had 
not  made  of  the  German  working  class  an  eco- 
nomic power  with  which  the  capitalists  were 
obliged  to  reckon  on  a  broad  scale. 

Why  was  all  this  force  to  be  powerless,  when 
it  came  to  a  choice  for  the  German  proletariat 
between  revolt  and  complicity  ?  Surely,  in  normal 
times  at  least,  the  force  of  the  proletarian  organ- 
ization never  lost  an  occasion  to  strengthen  itself. 

Perhaps  some  may  remember,  by  way  of  ex- 
ample, the  conflict  that  arose  in  1914  between 
the  Deutsche  Bank  and  the  Central  Commission 
of  Unions. 

An  employee  of  the  Deutsche  Bank,  having  ac- 
cepted a  position  of  trust  in  the  Union  of  Bank 
Employees,  was  disciplined  by  the  bank  manage- 
ment. The  association,  identifying  themselves 
with  the  employee  in  question,  protested.  But 
this  protest  would  have  had  no  grave  conse- 
quences, if  the  Commission  of  Unions  had  not 
intervened  in  the  affair.  It  threatened  the  bank, 
if  the  measure  taken  against  the  employee  were 
not  reversed  and  explicit  guarantees  given   for 


PROLETARIAN  ACTION  115 

the  future  that  it  would  withdraw  the  funds  that 
it  had  on  deposit.  The  bank  refused,  and  more 
than  20,000,000  marks — the  total  deposits  were 
from  80,000,000  to  100,000,000— were  withdrawn 
to  be  entrusted  to  other  banks  more  pliable  in 
the  face  of  union  demands. 

It  is  self-evident  that  against  a  working  class 
with  such  a  defensive  organization  at  its  disposal, 
the  methods  of  corruption  or  pressure,  resorted 
to  in  other  situations,  become  wholly  inapplicable. 

One  may  buy  or  intimidate  Irish  or  Italian 
immigrants  lately  arrived  at  New  York  or  Buenos 
Ayres,  Jewish  garment  workers  of  the  East  Side, 
Flemish  or  Neapolitan  tenants,  farm  laborers  in 
East  Prussia,  but  nothing  can  prevent  workers  in 
whom  the  socialist  ideal,  organization  and  con- 
sciousness are  fully  developed  from  using  the 
right  to  vote  for  the  defense  of  their  class 
interests. 

Even  from  this  point  of  view,  then,  it  becomes 
clear  that  the  social  democracy  could  not  entrench 
itself  on  the  political  field ;  could  not  be  a  party 
purely  electoral  and  parliamentary,  with  the  con- 
quest of  the  State  for  its  sole  aim.  To  accom- 
plish the  conquest  of  the  State,  it  must  oppose  to 
the  organization  of  capitalist  power  the  force  of 
labor  organization,  with  its  co-operatives,  its 
unions,  its  press,  its  educational  institutions. 


116  socialism  versus  the  state 

2.    Pressure  From  Without 

Ostrogorski,  replying  to  those  who  say  that  the 
people  is  incapable  of  self-government,  and  that 
universal  suffrage  and  parliamentarism  are,  con- 
sequently, an  absurdity,  subscribes  to  the  first  of 
these  affirmations,  but  rejects  the  second: 

The  political  function  of  the  masses  in  a  democracy, 
he  says,  is  not  to  govern  but  to  intimidate  the  governors. 
The  real  question,  again,  is  to  know  whether  and  to 
what  extent  they  are  capable  of  intimidating.  That  the 
masses  already  possess  in  most  democracies  today  the 
capacity  to  intimidate  the  governors  seriously,  is  beyond 
question.  It  is  thanks  to  this  that  actual  progress  has 
been  realized  in  society;  with  good  grace  or  ill,  the 
governors  are  obliged  to  take  account  of  the  needs  and 
aspirations  of  the  people. 

This  intimidation  of  governments,  this  pressure 
from  without  exercised  by  the  masses,  does  not 
necessarily  imply  that  they  be  organized. 

Mere  dread  of  the  voters,  when  a  strong  cur- 
rent in  favor  of  a  reform  exists,  may  decide  a 
conservative  majority  to  make  concessions. 

So  again  with  street  demonstrations;  the  first 
"social  laws"  in  Belgium  were  voted  by  chambers 
elected  by  landholders,  under  the  impressions 
produced  by  the  riots  of  March,  1886.  In  the 
phrase  of  a  conservative  writer,  Father  Ver- 
meersch,  the  bourgeoisie  then  saw  "by  the  light 
of  conflagrations"  that  there  was  a  social 
question. 


PROLETARIAN  ACTION  117 

It  is  by  relying  on  theses  of  this  sort  that  Sorel, 
in  his  "Reflections  on  Violence"  *  (1906),  under- 
took to  justify  the  methods  of  the  militants  of 
the  C.  G.  T.  For  him,  the  determining  factor 
in  social  politics  is  the  poltroonery  of  the  Govern- 
ment. The  revolutionary  syndicalists  know  this, 
and  make  excellent  use  of  the  situation.  They 
teach  the  laborers  that  it  is  not  a  question  of  going 
to  ask  favors  (from  the  government),  but  that 
they  should  take  advantage  of  "bourgeois  cow- 
ardice" to  impose  the  will  of  the  proletariat. 

There  are  too  many  facts  supporting  this 
theory  for  it  to  fail  of  taking  root  in  the  labor 
world. 

But  in  many  cases,  on  the  other  hand,  the  event 
has  shown  that  the  workers  would  be  making  a 
grave  mistake  to  count  without  limit  on  govern- 
mental or  parliamentarian  weakness,  and  that 
direct  action  thus  understood  could  not — quite 
apart  from  the  question  of  legitimacy — yield 
more  than  limited  results. 

However,  there  is  another  form  of  direct 
action,  which  is  not,  at  least  not  necessarily,  ac- 
companied by  violence:  it  is  the  use  by  labor 
organizations,  to  obtain  a  political  result,  to 
exercise    pressure    on    the    government,    of   the 


1  Sorel.  Reflections  sur  la  Violence.    La  Mouvement  soclal- 
iste,  1906,  vol.  I,  p.  31. 


118  SOCIALISM  VERSUS   THE  STATE 

methods  customary  in  economic  conflicts.  And 
naturally,  this  direct  action  is  more  effective  in 
proportion  as  the  working  class  is  better 
organized. 

It  is  possible  at  this  date  to  cite  many  govern- 
mental or  legislative  interventions  that  have  been 
determined  by  movements  of  this  sort :  the 
miners'  strikes  in  France  for  the  legal  eight-hour 
day  or  the  improvement  of  the  pension  system, 
the  general  strikes  for  the  conquest  of  political 
liberties  in  Russia,  for  universal  suffrage  in 
Belgium  and  Sweden,  or  again  the  railroad  and 
postofnce  strikes  in  France,  Austria,  Holland  and 
Italy. 

But  the  typical  case  of  a  strike  powerfully  or- 
ganized, culminating  in  the  imposition  upon  the 
employing  class,  by  legislative  act,  of  a  system  of 
work  to  which  it  had  refused  to  subscribe,  is  the 
great  strike  of  the  English  miners  in  February 
and  March,  1912,  for  a  minimum  wage. 

On  the  eve  of  this  memorable  conflict,  one  of 
the  leaders  of  the  Federation  of  Miners,  Harts- 
born,  said,  in  a  speech  addressed  to  the  miners  of 
South  Wales: 

The  full  strength  of  British  democracy  can  not  fail 
to  obtain  from  the  employers  and  the  State  the  guar- 
antee of  a  minimum  wage  for  the  industry.  I  predict 
that  next  week  Friday  (March  1),  will  mark  the  date 
of  a  new  era  in  the  history  of  this  country.     On  that 


PROLETARIAN  ACTION  119 

day  a  million  men  will  break  their  chains,  when  they 
declare  with  one  voice  that  they  will  no  more  be  slaves 
and  that  they  will  assert  their  right  to  be  treated  like 
freemen. 

To  carry  through  this  great  struggle,  the 
610,000  members  of  the  various  miners'  unions 
had  at  their  disposal  a  fund  of  2,167,000  pounds 
sterling,  about  $10,825,000,  giving  over  $18.00  per 
capita.  Assuming  that  each  miner  had  earned 
about  this  amount  in  the  week  before  the  strike, 
they  had  at  their  disposal  an  average  of  $36.00 
each,  not  counting  the  personal  savings  they 
might  have  made.  But  in  fact,  the  fund  not 
being  held  in  common,  the  resources  varied 
greatly  from  region  to  region. 

Nevertheless  the  miners  were  in  a  position  to 
hold  out  for  several  weeks,  thus  depriving  the 
other  industries  of  their  "black  bread."  Thus, 
their  simple  decision  to  stop  work  if  satisfaction 
were  not  obtained,  determined  the  government  to 
intervene  with  the  employers,  urging  their  consent 
to  an  amicable  solution.  The  majority  of  the 
heads  of  enterprises  promised  to  yield.  Others 
declared  themselves  for  resistance.  An  agree- 
ment failing,  the  strike  was  declared.  A  million 
strikers  took  part  in  it,  and  at  the  end  of  a  few 
days,  for  lack  of  coal,  other  laborers,  by  hundreds 
of  thousands,  were  thrown  out  of  work. 


120  SOCIALISM   VERSUS  THE  STATE 

Then  to  avoid  greater  disasters,  the  liberal  gov- 
ernment decided  to  regulate  the  matter  by  a 
legislative  act.  On  March  19,  1912,  Mr.  Asquith 
introduced  in  the  House  of  Commons  the  Coal 
Mines  (minimum  wage)  bill,  recognizing  the 
principle  of  the  minimum  wage  for  the  under- 
ground laborers  of  the  coal  mines. 

This  minimum  was  not  fixed  by  law,  but  by 
Joint  District  Boards,  composed  half  of  repre- 
sentatives of  the  employers,  half  of  representa- 
tives of  the  laborers,  with  an  arbitrator  to  give 
the  casting  vote. 

In  a  few  days  the  bill  passed  through  all  the 
stages  of  parliamentary  procedure,  usually  so 
lengthy.  The  labor  members  declared  it  insuffi- 
cient, but  they  had  no  answer  for  Lloyd  George 
when  he  said  to  them:  "If  you  were  sure  that 
your  opposition  would  cause  the  rejection  of  the 
bill,  would  you  speak  and  vote  against  it?" 

The  Liberals,  whose  election  in  sixty-four  dis- 
tricts depended  on  the  miners'  vote,  supported 
Mr.  Asquith  with  more  or  less  enthusiasm.  As 
for  the  Conservatives,  they  voted  against  it,  and 
while  making  no  serious  effort  to  prevent  the 
passage  of  the  bill,  they  left  it  to  Mr.  Balfour 
to  indicate  the  motives  of  the  governmental 
initiative : 

The  position  of  the  Government  is  like  that  of  an 


■»>-    ^*Staj 


PROLETARIAN  ACTION  121 

individual  robbed  in  a  dark  street  by  a  man  of 
formidable  aspect,  and  who  might  say  to  him :  "My 
dear  friend,  it  is  not  your  terrible  aspect  nor  your 
heavy  club  that  make  me  give  you  my  purse  and  my 
watch.  Let  me  assure  you,  before  we  separate  amicably, 
that  I  am  grateful  to  you  for  having  given  me  this 
opportunity  to  accomplish  an  act  of  tardy  justice." 

Describing  the  bill  as  "panic  legislation,"  he 

added : 

It  is  folly  to  encourage  such  acts  by  making  all  men 
believe  that  they  can  force  the  action  of  Parliament  by 
such  means.  Tomorrow  they  will  begin  again  from  the 
same  motive  or  others. 

It  remains  to  know  what  Mr.  Balfour  would 
have  done,  if  he  had  been  in  Mr.  Asquith's  place. 

It  may  help  us  guess,  if  we  remember  that  the 
House  of  Lords,  where  his  friends  were  in  the 
majority,  and  where  they  still  had  the  right  of 
absolute  veto,  carefully  refrained  from  obstruct- 
ing the  proposals  of  the  Government. 

We  may  differ,  moreover,  as  to  the  value  and 
importance  of  the  results  obtained,  but,  from  the 
moral  view-point,  the  victory  of  the  miners  was 
immense,  and  Mr.  Balfour  was  right  in  saying 
that  it  would  lead  to  further  demands. 

Everything  indicates,  in  fact,  that  more  and 
more  in  the  future  the  laborers  will  resort  to  the 
organized  strike,  for  obtaining  legislative  re- 
forms, and  that  this  pressure  from  without  will 
tend  to  become  an  almost  normal  means  of  pre- 


122  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

vailing  over  the  inertia,  the  weakness  and  the  ill 
will  of  bourgeois  parliaments. 

Nevertheless  we  may  also  foresee  that,  later 
on,  the  use  of  such  methods  will  cease  to  be  useful 
because  the  working  class  will  be  strong  enough, 
either  to  dispense  with  protective  legislation,  or 
to  legislate  for  itself,  instead  of  constraining  its 
masters  to  legislate  for  it. 

3.    The  Formation  of  the  New  System 

The  unions  and  other  labor  groups  have  thus 
far  appeared  to  us  as  the  necessary  sub-stratum 
of  political  action  and  the  most  effective  means 
at  the  disposal  of  the  proletariat  for  acting  on 
governments  and  parliamentary  majorities. 

But  from  the  view-point  of  the  conquest  of 
power,  their  development  has  an  importance  even 
greater,  it  is  in  fact  through  labor  organization 
and  in  labor  organization  that  the  workers  pre- 
pare themselves,  by  managing  enterprises  and 
administering  free  associations,  to  substitute 
themselves  one  day  for  the  administrators  and 
the  captains  of  industry  of  the  capitalist  system. 

To  understand  this  immense  subterranean 
labor,  it  is  necessary  to  read  such  books  as  "La 
Coutume  Ouvriere"  by  Maxime  Leroy  or  "In- 
dustrial Democracy,"  by  Sidney  and  Beatrice 
Webb. 


PROLETARIAN  ACTION  123 

As  the  Webbs  point  out  so  well,  the  organiza- 
tion of  labor  offers  to  the  student  of  democracy 
the  spectacle  of  a  multitude  of  independent, 
autonomous  republics,  trying  repeatedly  all 
known  political  expedients,  with  a  view  to  com* 
bining  an  efficient  administration  with  popular 
control. 

Whatever  the  system  adopted,  the  organization 
remains  democratic.  The  general  assembly  has 
the  last  word.  But,  when  it  comes  to  administer- 
ing federations  of  unions,  grouping  thousands  of 
members,  or  managing  wholesale  stores,  like 
those  of  Hamburg,  Manchester  or  Glasgow,  they 
have  quickly  renounced  the  primitive  forms  of 
democracy,  with  nominations  of  managers  for 
short  terms,  and  direct  intervention  of  the  gen- 
eral assemblies  in  the  smallest  affairs.  They 
create  permanent  functionaries.  To  them  they 
delegate  extended  powers.  These  officials  receive 
guarantees  for  the  future.  Salaries  are  assured 
them  which  make  it  possible  to  recruit  an  efficient 
force.  And  thus,  in  the  union  sphere,  as  in  the 
co-operative  or  political  sphere,  is  formed  little 
by  little  a  personnel  of  technicians  and  managers, 
who  would  be  capable,  if  the  need  arose,  of 
stepping  into  the  places  of  the  present  capitalists. 

Moreover,  if  this  substitution  took  place,  thou- 
sands of  proletarian  intellectuals  today  incorpo- 


124  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

rated  into  the  structure  of  private  industry  would 
have  every  motive  of  private  interest  for  joining 
the  new  order. 

Such  a  development,  true,  is  still  in  its  first 
stages.  Nothing  would  expose  the  workers  to 
more  deceptions  than  to  conceive  an  excessive 
idea  of  their  political  and  industrial  capacity.  But 
it  is  the  progressive  acquirement  of  this  capacity 
that  gives  all  their  importance  to  the  various 
forms  of  labor  organization.  A  new  world  is  in 
course  of  creation,  on  the  edge  of  bourgeois 
society  and  in  opposition  to  it.  It  has  its  ethics, 
its  discipline,  its  juridical  institutions,  its  con- 
stitutional and  civil  rules.  It  constitutes,  already, 
an  immense  federation,  co-operative,  unionist, 
political,  whose  closely-woven  woof  covers  the 
entire  world.  And,  just  as  the  bourgeois  revo- 
lution was  not  the  application  of  an  abstract  doc- 
trine, but  the  systematization  of  an  organization 
already  pre-existing  in  fact,  so  the  conquest  of 
power  by  the  proletariat  may  be  accompanied  by 
victorious  strokes  or  triumphant  elections,  but  it 
will  have  as  a  preliminary  condition,  a  condition 
sine  qua  non,  the  pre-existence  of  an  organization 
capable  of  furnishing  elements  of  direction  and 
management  within  the  new  system. 

Briefly,  the  conquest  of  power,  thus  under- 
Stood,  ceases  to  be  confused,  either  with  the 


PROLETARIAN  ACTION  125 

conquest  of  the  parliamentary  majority  and  the 
government  by  electoral  action  alone,  or  with 
the  sudden  seizure  of  the  State  by  force.  Before 
the  workers  can  become  the  directing  class,  they 
must,  having  become  through  capitalistic  evolu- 
tion the  great  (or  as  the  Communist  Manifesto 
says  the  immense)  majority  of  the  population, 
add  to  their  numerical  power  the  power  of  organ- 
ization, political  and  economic. 

Now,  that  alone  is  enough  to  show  how  grossly 
deceived  are  those  who  maintain,  with  Leroy- 
Beaulieu,  that  socialism  is  statism,  and  that  in  a 
socialist  system  the  various  associations,  the 
voluntary  and  free  combinations  would  disappear, 
absorbed  by  the  all-powerful  and  all-providing 
State. 

Without  the  individual  and  collective  "self- 
help"  of  the  working  class,  without  a  vast  organic 
development  of  the  unions,  of  the  co-operatives, 
of  association  under  all  its  forms,  it  is  not  even 
possible  to  conceive  of  the  seizure  of  political 
power  by  the  workers,  and  after  that,  how  can 
we  believe  that  once  masters  of  these  powers,  the 
toilers,  destroying  their  work,  would  consent,  as 
Leroy-Beaulieu  predicts,  to  become  once  more 
human  dust,  and  to  abdicate  into  the  hands  of 
the  police-State  the  power  which  by  their  free 
effort  they  had  conquered. 


126  socialism  versus  the  state 

4.    The  Proletarian  Conquest  of 
Political  Power 
It  only  remains  to  draw  our  conclusion. 
What  must  we  think  of  that  schematic  view  of 
the  social  revolution,  which  is  found  constantly 
in  Marx  and  Engels,  from  the  Manifesto  to  the 
"Civil   War   in    France":    conquest   of   political 
power  by  the  proletariat;  collective  dictatorship 
of  the  proletariat;  abolition  of  the  State? 

(a)     Conquest 'of  Political  Poiver  By 
the  Proletariat 

It  will  be  asked  at  the  start  whether  the  word 
proletariat  has  not  too  restricted  a  meaning,  and 
if  it  is  not  better  to  say:  conquest  of  political 
power  by  the  workers,  manual  or  intellectual? 

In  its  usual  sense  the  term  proletariat  indicates 
"people  who  are  in  indigence"  (Hatzfeld  and 
Darmesteter).  Now  all  workers  are  not  indigent, 
and  at  this  point  we  must  recognize  that  the 
expression  is  liable  to  be  misunderstood.  But 
this  is  not  a  question  of  terminology. 

For  Marx  and  Engels,  the  proletariat  is  "the 
modern  working-class,  a  class  of  laborers,  who 
live  only  so  long  as  they  find  work,  and  who  find 
work  only  so  long  as  their  labor  increases 
capital."1 


1  Communist  Manifesto,  page  21  Kerr  edition. 


PROLETARIAN  ACTION  127 

These  laborers,  assuredly,  are  not  the  only 
laborers.  But  they  are  the  only  ones  who  have  a 
direct,  immediate,  personal  interest  in  emancipat- 
ing themselves  from  capitalist  domination.  The 
intellectuals,  the  people  of  the  liberal  professions, 
may  have  sympathy  for  the  proletarian  cause. 
They  may  say  that  under  a  socialist  system,  as 
well  as  today,  their  capacities  would  find  employ- 
ment. And  in  fact,  it  is  hard  to  imagine  how, 
without  the  support,  or  at  least  the  neutralization 
of  these  elements,  or  of  a  part  of  these  elements, 
the  proletariat  can  grasp  the  power  of  the  State. 
Nevertheless,  the  history  of  every  socialist  move- 
ment— and  even  at  the  present  hour,  of  Russia — 
shows  that  the  real  motive  power  of  the  social 
revolution,  the  class  really  agitating  against  capi- 
talism, is  certainly  the  working  class.  In  view  of 
this,  we  see  no  sufficient  reasons  for  modifying 
the  traditional  terminology. 

If  it  has  been  consecrated  by  usage,  neither  has 
it  ceased  to  be  enlarged  by  practice,  and  the 
affirmation  of  the  proletarian,  the  labor  character 
of  the  social  democracy  has  been  no  obstacle  to 
the  recruiting  of  workers  who  are  not,  properly 
speaking,  proletarians  or  laborers. 

(b)     The  Collective  Dictatorship  of 
the  Proletariat 

Marx   and   Engels   foresaw   that   at   a   given 


128  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

moment — following,  for  example,  an  inter- 
national war — the  workers,  carried  into  power 
by  events,  will  use  this  power  to  take  away,  little 
by  little,  from  the  bourgeoisie,  all  its  capital, 
putting  the  means  of  production  in  the  hands  of 
the  State.  They  say  this  in  the  Manifesto. 
Engels  repeats  it,  in  1891,  in  the  introduction  to 
the  German  translation  of  "The  Civil  War  in 
France" : 

The  State,  he  says,  is  neither  more  nor  less  than  a 
machine  for  the  oppression  of  one  class  by  another,  and 
that  quite  as  much  in  a  democratic  republic  as  in  a 
monarchy;  and  the  least  to  be  said  is  that  it  is  a 
scourge  which  the  proletariat  inherits  in  its  struggle 
for  class  domination;  but  of  which  it  must,  as  the  Com- 
mune did,  and  in  the  greatest  measure  possible,  atten- 
uate the  most  grievous  effects,  until  the  day  when  a 
new  generation,  reared  in  a  new  society  of  free  and 
equal  men,  may  rid  itself  of  all  governmental  rubbish. 
The  German  Philistines  are  always  plunged  into  holy 
terror  at  the  words  "dictatorship  of  the  proletariat." 
Would  you  know,  gentlemen,  what  that  dictatorship 
means?  Look  at  the  Paris  Commune.  There  is  the 
dictatorship  of  the  proletariat. 

Such  indeed  is,  in  substance,  the  idea  com- 
monly held  in  socialist  circles  of  the  social  revo- 
lution :  a  new  Commune,  this  time  victorious,  no 
longer  at  a  single  point,  but  in  the  principal 
centers  of  the  capitalist  world. 

Hypothesis ;  but  hypothesis  with  nothing  im- 
probable in  it,  in  these  times  when  it  already 
appears  that  the  after-war  period  in  a  number  of 


PROLETARIAN  ACTION  129 

countries  will  bring  class  antagonisms  and  un- 
heard-of social  convulsions. 

Only,  if  the  defeat  of  the  Paris  Commune,  not 
to  speak  of  the  difficulties  of  the  Russian  Revo- 
lution, proves  anything,  it  is  the  impossibility  of 
ending  the  capitalist  system  as  long  as  the  pro- 
letariat is  not  sufficiently  prepared  to  exercise 
the  power  which  circumstances  might  let  fall  into 
its  hands. 

Neither  does  Marx  claim  more.  Witness  this 
celebrated  passage  from  "The  Civil  War  in 
France" : 

The  working  class  did  not  expect  miracles  from  the 
Commune.  They  have  no  ready-made  Utopias  to  intro- 
duce by  order  of  the  people.  They  know  that  in  order 
to  work  out  their  own  emanciptation,  and  along  with 
it  that  higher  form  to  which  present  society  is  irre- 
sistibly tending,  by  its  own  economical  agencies,  they 
will  have  to  pass  through  long  struggles,  through  a 
series  of  historic  processes,  transforming  circumstances 
and  men. 

Consequently  what  matters  to  the  proletariat  is 
not  to  make  prophecies,  nor  to  discuss  the 
prophecies  of  others  on  the  hypothesis  of  its  col- 
lective dictatorship,  but  to  prepare  itself,  by  the 
development  of  its  organization,  economic  and  po- 
litical, to  dominate  events,  whatever  may  happen. 

Meanwhile  it  should  be  noted  that  the  more  this 
autonomous  organization  of  the  working  class 
develops,  the  more  profoundly  must  the  primitive 


130  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

and    elementary    conception    of    the    proletarian 
dictatorship  be  modified. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  it  seems  undeniable  that 
Engels  and  Marx,  at  least  in  the  Manifesto, 
suppose  that  at  a  given  moment  the  proletarians, 
donning  the  boots  of  the  police-state,  will  appro- 
priate the  coercive  powers  created  by  the  bour- 
geoisie, to  govern  against  the  bourgeoisie,  that 
they  will,  in  a  word,  to  make  the  social  revolution, 
utilize  the  instrument  of  rule  forged  by  the 
master  class  to  make  revolution  impossible.  Now, 
with  a  proletariat  powerfully  organized,  we  may 
admit  that  it  would  be  far  less  a  question  of 
utilizing  the  bourgeois  State  for  other  ends,  than 
of  substituting  for  it  a  new  State  which  is,  from 
now  on,  in  process  of  formation  in  the  great 
trade-union,  co-operative  and  political  federations 
of  the  working  class. 

That  does  not  mean,  assuredly,  that  nothing 
ought  to  be  preserved,  even  provisionally,  of  the 
old  state-machine.  But,  to  speak  frankly,  we 
have  trouble  in  admitting  that  this  instrument  of 
domination  and  oppression  can,  without  essential 
modifications,  be  used  as  a  means  of  liberation 
and  enfranchisement.  Engels  moreover  admits 
this  to  a  certain  extent  when  he  writes  (see  the 
introduction  quoted  above)  that  in  the  example 
of  the  Commune,  the  proletariat,  heir  to  this 


PROLETARIAN  ACTION  131 

scourge,  ought,  while  awaiting  its  complete  aboli- 
tion, "to  attenuate,  as  far  as  possible,  its  most 
grievous  effects." 

(c)     Abolition  of  the  State 

What  is  to  be  said? 

If  certain  expressions  are  taken  literally,  it 
seems  that  in  speaking  of  the  abolition  of  the 
State,  the  Marxians  foresee  the  passage,  by  a 
mutation  more  or  less  abrupt,  from  the  pro- 
letarian dictatorship  to  anarchy,  to  the  absence  of 
government. 

But  consider  more  closely. 

As  we  have  said,  the  State,  as  the  term  is  used 
by  Marx  and  Engels,  is  not  the  State  in  the  broad 
sense,  the  State,  organ  of  management,  the  State, 
representing  the  general  interests  of  society.  It 
is  the  State-power,  the  State,  organ  of  authority, 
the  State,  instrument  of  domination  by  one  class 
over  another. 

In  "The  Civil  War  in  France,"  for  example, 
Marx  opposes  the  "free  federation  of  all  men" 
to  the  State  as  "national  power  of  capital  over 
labor  .  .  .,  public  force  organized  for  social 
enslavement     .     .     .,  engine  of  class  despotism." 

Likewise,  in  "Anti-Duehring,"  Engels  tells  us 
that  the  State  is  the  organization  of  the  exploiting 
class  at  every  epoch  with  a  view  to  maintaining 
these    exterior    conditions    of    production,    and 


132  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

notably  with  a  view  to  holding  the  exploited  class 
by  force  within  the  conditions  of  oppression  re- 
quired by  the  existing  mode  of  production 
(slavery,  serfdom,  wage-labor). 

Once  these  definitions  are  admitted,  the  Marx- 
ian syllogism  is  logically  unassailable : 

1.  The  State  is  the  organ  of  the  domination 
of  one  class  over  another. 

2.  Now,  socialism  aims  at  the  suppression  of 
classes  by  the  socialization  of  the  means  of 
production  and  exchange. 

3.  Thus  socialism  tends,  by  this  very  fact,  to 
abolish  the  State. 

All  would  thus  be  for  the  best  if  the  Marxian 
sense  of  the  word  "State"  did  not  differ  from  the 
usual  sense.  But  as  it  does  differ,  misunder- 
standings and  confusions  may  arise  regarding  the 
abolition  of  the  State,  as  understood  by  Marxians. 

It  is  therefore  important  to  be  definite  and  to 
say  once  more  that  if,  in  a  socialist  society,  the 
State,  organ  of  authority,  saw  its  functions  re- 
duced to  the  minimum,  the  State,  organ  of 
administration,  would  continue  to  be  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  general  interests  of  the  com- 
munity. 

This  necessary  distinction  will  moreover  be 
increasingly  important,  now  that  we  are  to  dis- 
cuss the  socialization  of  the  means  of  production. 


PART  TWO 

The  Socialization  of  the  Means  of 

Production 

Even  before  the  present  war,  which  in  the 
nature  of  things  brought  with  it  a  prodigious 
development  of  statism,  one  of  the  characteristics 
of  social  evolution  has  been  the  considerable  in- 
crease of  the  functions  and  the  domain  of  the 
State.  The  old  monopolies  or  fiscal  domains, 
which  not  long  ago  were  thought  to  be  about  to 
disappear — the  tobacco  monopoly  in  France  for 
example,  or  the  fiscal  lands  in  Prussia — are  not 
only  preserved,  but  extended  and  developed. 
National  forests  are  bought  or  created.  The  rail- 
roads are  taken  over.  The  rights  of  the  nation 
over  water  power  are  proclaimed.  Monopolies 
are  established  or  projected  in  alcohol,  as  in 
Switzerland,  in  potash  or  petroleum,  as  in  Hun- 
gary, not  to  speak  of  camphor,  as  in  Japan,  or 
radium,  as  in  the  United  States. 

We  have  said  that  a  number  of  socialists,  and 
also  of  adversaries  of  socialism,  see  in  this  prog- 
ress of  statisation  so  many  partial  victories  for 
collectivist  ideas. 

That  is,  to  say  the  least,  a  manifest  exaggera- 

133 


134  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

tion.  The  truth  is  that  in  "statizing"  certain 
industries,  the  governments  as  they  existed  before 
the  war  were  obeying  certain  very  complex  con- 
siderations, of  which  some  were  military  and 
fiscal,  others  social  in  their  nature. 

It  is  beyond  doubt,  for  example,  that  in  the 
larger  countries,  the  State,  in  buying  the  railways, 
or  in  keeping  a  heavy  hand  on  the  companies,  as 
in  France,  had  in  view  especially  the  transporta- 
tion of  troops  in  case  of  war.  It  is  no  accident 
that  the  only  countries  in  which  the  railroads 
remain  wholly  or  almost  wholly  in  private  hands 
are  England  and  the  United  States.  Both  of 
these  countries,  for  various  reasons,  believed 
themselves  dispensed  from  seeing,  in  their  iron 
roads,  means  for  attack  or  for  defense. 

But,  independently  of  this  direct  influence, 
modern  militarism  exerts  an  indirect  action,  still 
more  important,  upon  the  development  and 
multiplication  of  State  monopolies.  From  year 
to  year,  up  to  the  moment  of  the  catastrophe,  it 
has  demanded  new  expenditures.  Along  with 
the  burdens  of  the  governments'  social  policy, 
the  burdens  of  the  armed  peace  have  increased 
in  such  proportions,  that  the  ordinary  resources 
of  the  public  treasuries  no  longer  sufficed. 

In  the  six  principal  countries  of  Europe,  for 
example,  the  foreseen  military  expenditures,  not 


SOCIALIZATION  OF  MEANS  OF  PRODUCTION     135 

including  those  disguised  in  other  budgets, 
amounted  to  the  following  figures  in  1883  and  in 
1912: 

Total  Military  Expenditures  of  the  Six  Great  European 

Powers  in  1883  and  in  1912 

(In  millions  of  francs) 

Increase  between     1883  and  1912 
Country  1883       1912     Millions     Per  Cent 

Germany 504      1,648        1,144  227.0 

England 702     1,779        1,077  153.4 

Austria-Hungary....    318        674  356  111.9 

France 789     1,343  554  70.2 

Italy 311        649  338  108.6 

Russia 894     1,920        1,026  114.8 

Totals 3,518     8,013        4,495  127.7 

To  find  these  billions,  which  the  enormous  in- 
crease of  public  debts  will  multiply  after  the  war, 
by  resorting  to  taxes  alone,  becomes  irksome  and 
will  become  more  and  more  irksome.  Even  be- 
fore the  war  there  were  plans  for  fiscal  monop- 
olies. Those  already  existing  were  developed. 
Thereby  results  an  extension  of  the  collective 
domain,  but  it  should  be  well  understood  that  it 
is  difficult  to  see  in  this  phenomenon  a  triumph 
for  socialist  ideas. 

Let  us  add  however  that,  apart  from  the  influ- 
ences of  a  fiscal  and  military  order,  other  factors 
have  intervened,  and  will  intervene  more  and 
more.     It  is  not  to  secure  revenue  nor  with  a 


136  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

view  to  preparing  for  war  that  the  Belgian  State 
and  the  Swiss  State  have  bought  the  railways, 
that  Switzerland  wishes  to  nationalize  insurance, 
that  hydraulic  power  is  being  socialized  almost 
everywhere,  that  national  forestry  is  being  ex- 
tended, or  that  the  Prussian  State,  which  already 
possesses  some  coal  mines,  is  trying  to  acquire 
more. 

In  proportion  as  the  influence  of  socialism 
increases,  as  the  mass  of  consumers  becomes 
aware  of  the  exploitation  imposed  by  the  capital- 
istic monopolies,  the  governments  must  appeal  to 
other  motives  than  fiscal  ones  for  bringing  new 
industries  within  the  State's  sphere  of  action. 

Thus  for  example  in  the  French  Chamber,  on 

November  19,  1909,  the  minister  of  finance,  M. 

Cochery,  on  the  day  following  certain  monster 

meetings  protesting  against  new  taxes  on  alcohol, 

organized  by  the  retailers  of  liquor,  supported 

and  encouraged  by  the  big  distillers,  expressed 

himself  in  these  terms: 

M.  Cochery,  Minister  of  Finance:  I  shall  not  follow 
M.  Guillemet  into  the  parlors  of  the  Tuileries,  where  he 
wished  to  conduct  us  the  other  day,  to  show  us  the 
splendor  and  luxury  of  a  certain  tobacco  merchant,  the 
revelation  of  which  has  been  enough  to  determine 
Napoleon  to  establish  the  tobacco  monopoly.  I  shall 
remain  far  more  modern.  I  shall  confine  myself,  while 
glancing  over  the  altogether  democratic  meetings  of 
1909,    to   considering    for   a   moment    that    formidable 


SOCIALIZATION  OF  MEANS  OF  PRODUCTION   137 

money  power,  residing  in  certain  manufacturers,  that 
they  have  revealed  to  us,  and  I  shall  merely  say:  the 
problem  of  the  alcohol  monopoly,  agitated  for  some 
years  in  the  past,  studied  with  ardor,  then  fallen  into 
slumber,  is  re-awakened ;  its  examination  will  follow 
shortly.  (Lively  applause  on  the  left  and  extreme  left.) 
******* 

And  before  long  the  other  problem  will  perhaps  be 
raised;  that  of  the  consideration  of  the  monopoly  of 
insurance  or  of  certain  forms  of  insurance.    (Applause.) 

M.  Lasies :  It  is  only  the  moderates  who  play  radical 
politics.     However,  I  do  not  blame  you  for  it. 

The  Minister  of  Finance:  Monsieur  Lasies,  if  the 
moderates  sometimes  play  radical  politics,  it  is  because 
there  are  times  when  certain  interests  show  in  such  a 
striking  fashion  their  influence  over  the  life  of  this 
country  that  men  of  good  faith  ask  themselves  whether 
this  role  really  belongs  to  private  interests.  (Applause 
on  the  left  and  the  extreme  left.)  1 

Even  before  the  war  it  could  be  foreseen  that 
in  the  near  future  the  French  State,  which  drew 
each  year  more  than  300,000,000  francs  from  the 
tobacco  monopoly,  which  manufactured  matches 
(badly  enough,  by  the  way),  which  operated  rail- 
ways, made  porcelains  at  Sevres  and  tapestries  at 
Gobelins,  would  also  make  itself  an  insurance 
agent  and  a  producer  or  rectifier  of  alcohol. 

But,  in  France  as  elsewhere,  this  tendency  to- 
ward the  statization  of  certain  industries  has  been 
counteracted,  thus  far,  by  active  opposition  based 


1  Journal  offlciel  du  20  novembre  1910,  Debats  parlemen- 
taires.  p.  2794-2795. 


138  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

on  the  disadvantages  presented  by  State  exploita- 
tion in  its  present  form. 

Certainly,  in  this  matter,  we  can  not  be  too 
distrustful  of  the  deliberate  exaggerations  of 
those  who  have  a  direct  interest  in  saying  the 
worst  possible  things  about  the  management  of 
public  enterprises. 

Too  often,  in  fact,  public  opinion  in  this  matter 
is  manufactured  by  a  press  whose  "doctrinal  pub- 
licity," to  use  the  neat  phrase  of  a  French  deputy, 
reflects  with  a  systematic  fidelity  the  opinion 
of  the  capitalists  who  wish  to  preserve  their 
monopolies. 

It  will  be  remembered,  for  example,  that  the 
London  Times  published,  a  few  years  ago,  a 
series  of  unsigned  articles,  emanating,  it  was 
said,  from  an  impartial  observer,  against  the 
municipal  lighting  systems  in  England.  These 
articles  made  the  tour  of  Europe.  They  furnish, 
even  today,  arguments  for  the  opponents  of 
municipalization.  Now,  a  short  time  after  their 
publication,  it  was  learned  that  the  "impartial  ob- 
server" was  the  general  manager  of  one  of  the 
big  electric  light  and  power  companies  of  London. 

In  like  manner  we  have  seen  a  press  campaign 
against  the  Western  State  Railway  of  France, 
very  instructive  for  those  who  knew  or  guessed 
what  was  behind  it. 


SOCIALIZATION  OF  MEANS  OF  PRODUCTION    139 

As  always  happens,  the  Western  Company, 
which  had  always  been  very  badly  managed, 
began  to  be  managed  worse  still  when  it  saw  the 
government  purchase  coming.  The  rolling  stock 
was  not  renewed,  the  maintenance  of  the  railways 
was  scandalously  neglected.  In  short,  when  the 
State  had  taken  it  over,  it  found  itself  confronted 
with  a  situation  such  that  any  normal  operation 
became  impossible.  This  occasioned  numerous 
accidents,  chargeable,  at  least  in  part,  to  the  vices 
of  the  former  system,  but  affording  material  for 
so  many  propagandist  indictments  against  opera- 
tion by  the  State.  When  an  accident  took  place 
on  the  lines  operated  by  the  companies,  it  was 
merely  an  incident;  on  the  "West  State"  it  be- 
came an  argument. 

As  for  the  explanation  of  this  attitude  of  a 
part  of  the  press,  it  will  be  found,  for  lack  of 
more  recent  documents,  in  the  parliamentary 
inquiry  made  in  1895  by  the  French  Chamber, 
with  the  aim  of  studying  the  moral  conditions  of 
the  famous  articles  of  agreement  (between  the 
State  and  the  railways)  of  1883,  so  justly  char- 
acterized as  nefarious. 

In  the  course  of  the  inquiry  M.  Carlier,  gen- 
eral secretary  of  the  Orleans  Company,  explained 
that  the  six  great  companies  had,  long  before, 
organized  at  their  common  expense  a  publicity 


140  SOCIALISM   VERSUS  THE  STATE 

service  for  the  defense  of  their  interests,  and  on 
the  subject  of  the  expenses  incurred  by  this  serv- 
ice, he  gave  the  following  information : 

The  expense  for  the  year  1880  was  520,000  francs  for 
the  six  companies.  That  for  1881  was  only  400,000 
francs  or  a  trifle  more.  In  1882,  it  was  much  heavier; 
that  was  the  year  of  the  campaign  for  government 
purchase  against  which  the  companies  were  struggling; 
the  expense  went  up  to  735,000  francs.  The  following 
year  it  was  slightly  less,  718,000  francs. 

After  the  signing  of  the  articles,  constituting  a  treaty 
of  peace,  the  expenditures  diminished  sharply;  in  1884 
they  were  still  450,000  francs,  I  believe,  but  in  subse- 
quent years  the  figures  were  much  less. 

******* 

For  the  last  three  years,  I  must  say,  since  the  strike 
of  i8gi,  we  have  new  questions  which  pre-occupy  us; 
difficulties  may  arise  on  this  field,  over  which  the  com- 
panies, you  understand,  ought  to  be  anxious.1 

Is  it  surprising,  after  such  confessions,  that 
certain  great  newspapers  show  themselves  so  dis- 
tinctly hostile  both  to  the  demands  of  the  railway 
workers,  and  to  the  nationalization  of  the  rail- 
ways? 

Nevertheless,  after  making  allowance,  and  it 
should  be  a  very  large  allowance,  for  exaggera- 
tions and  falsehoods,  the  fact  remains,  at  least  in 
countries  where  the  industrial  State  is  con- 
founded   with    the    Government-State,    that    the 


1 V.  Milhaud,  Le  Rachat  des  Chemins  de  fer,  p.  22.    Paris, 
Comply.  1904. 


SOCIALIZATION  OF  MEANS  OF  PRODUCTION    141 

present  methods  of  operation  of  the  public  serv- 
ices give  ground  for  absolutely  just  criticism. 

True,  monopoly  for  monopoly,  it  may  be  pre- 
ferable, despite  everything,  to  substitute  the 
monopoly  of  the  State  for  the  monopoly  of  the 
great  capitalist  companies.  But  there  is  at  least 
a  germ  of  truth  in  the  opinion  of  those  who  hold 
that  the  state  is  a  bad  merchant  and  a  bad  manu- 
facturer, and  who  consequently  dread  to  see,  as  a 
consequence  of  the  progress  of  statization,  the 
development  of  a  sluggish,  routine-bound  bu- 
reaucracy; who  rebel  at  the  thought  of  seeing 
their  individual  initiative  weakened,  and  who  see 
a  serious  menace  to  liberty  in  the  transformation 
of  an  ever-growing  number  of  citizens  into 
officials. 

Only,  we  can  not  repeat  often  enough  that  it 
is  not  the  State,  as  constituted  today,  to  which 
the  socialists  would  assign  the  collective  pro- 
prietorship of  the  means  of  production  and 
exchange. 

In  reality,  all  the  misunderstandings  that  arise 
on  this  subject,  all  the  confusions  that  possess 
people's  minds  proceed  from  the  fact  that  the 
word  State — with  a  capital  S — can  be  taken  in 
two  very  different  senses. 

If  we  consult,  for  example,  Littre's  dictionary, 
we   shall   find   the    following  definitions   of   the 


142  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

State:  (1)  a  body  of  people;  (2)  the  government 
of  a  country. 

In  the  first  sense — the  body  of  the  people — it 
is  true  that  the  socialists  advocate  the  appropria- 
tion of  the  principal  means  of  production  by  the 
State,  with  this  reservation,  however,  that  certain 
industries,  notably  the  railways,  tend  to  become 
international,  and  that  others,  having  a  local  char- 
acter, belong  within  the  municipal  sphere. 

In  the  second  sense,  on  the  contrary — the  gov- 
ernment of  a  country — it  is  absolutely  incorrect 
to  say  that  the  socialists  wish  to  entrust  the 
operation  of  the  principal  industries  to  the  Gov- 
ernment-State. The  function  of  a  government, 
in  brief,  is  to  govern,  not  to  manage  industrial 
enterprises,  and  to  entrust  functions  of  an  eco- 
nomic order  to  a  government  is  like  placing  a 
police  officer  in  control  of  a  lighting  plant,  or 
asking  the  commander  of  an  army  corps  to  busy 
himself  with  posts,  telegraphs  and  railroads. 

Unhappily,  today,  when  the  State  administers 
an  industry,  it  proceeds  to  a  great  extent  in  that 
very  way :  the  police  State,  the  military  State,  is 
not  sufficiently  distinct  from  the  schoolmaster  or 
industrial  State.  Their  fundamental  characters 
are  the  same.  Their  resources  become  inter- 
mingled. Their  directing  bodies,  finally,  are  re- 
cruited according  to  the  same  rules. 


SOCIALIZATION  OF  MEANS  OF  PRODUCTION   143 

When,  for  example,  it  is  a  question  of  choosing 
a  general  manager  for  the  State  railways,  they  do 
not  summon  a  technician.  It  is  a  cabinet  minister 
who  is  being  appointed.  The  real  rulers  choose 
among  men  of  political  influence,  among  the 
parliamentarians  in  view,  an  attorney,  a  debating 
economist,  and  over  night,  they  make  of  him  the 
employer,  the  responsible  head  of  the  greatest 
industrial  enterprise  of  the  country. 

Is  it  surprising,  under  these  conditions,  that  the 
operation  of  the  State  railways  leaves  something 
to  be  desired?  It  is  remarkable,  on  the  contrary, 
that  oftener  than  not,  thanks  to  the  high  quality 
of  its  technical  staff,  it  can,  on  a  definite  test, 
sustain  a  comparison  with  the  better  operated  of 
the  large  companies. 

But,  in  spite  of  the  advantages  which,  at  this 
time,  the  public  administration  of  railways  pre- 
sents, there  should  be  no  question  (and  on  this 
point  we  agree  with  Guesde)  of  extending  this 
system  of  exploitation  to  most  industries,  of 
socializing  the  principal  means  of  production  and 
exchange,  without  first  realizing  the  two  follow- 
ing conditions : 

1.  The  transformation  of  the  present  State, 
organ  of  domination  of  one  class  over  another, 
into  what  Menger  calls  the  People's  Labor  State, 
by  the  proletarian  conquest  of  political  power. 


144  SOCIALISM   VERSUS  THE  STATE 

2.  The  separation  of  the  State,  organ  of 
authority,  and  the  State,  organ  of  management, 
or,  to  revive  the  expressions  of  Saint-Simon,  the 
separation  of  the  government  of  men  from  the 
administration  of  things. 

Of  these  two  preliminary  conditions,  the  for- 
mer— after  what  we  have  already  said — requires 
no  extended  comment. 

So  long,  indeed,  as  the  State  remains  what  it 
is  today,  that  is  to  say  the  bourgeois  State,  the 
capitalist  State,  the  class  State,  founded  on 
force,  with  its  military  armament  against  the 
enemy  within  and  the  enemy  without,  an  arm- 
ament as  burdensome  as  it  is  formidable,  any 
increase  in  its  domain  threatens  to  re-appear  as 
an  increase  in  the  powers  of  oppression  at  the 
disposal  of  the  master  class. 

If  the  State,  for  example,  operates  the  rail- 
roads, the  minister  at  the  head  of  this  public 
service  has  under  his  orders  an  army  of  officials, 
employees  and  laborers.  If  he  treats  them,  from 
certain  points  of  view,  in  a  more  satisfactory 
manner  than  do  the  private  employers, — their 
positions  *are  more  permanent  and  their  insurance 
funds  generally  afford  better  protection, — on  the 
other  hand  he  refuses  them  the  right  to  strike, 
bargains  with  them  for  the  right  of  association, 
forbids  them  to  be  active  in  politics,  and  strives 


SOCIALIZATION  OF  MEANS  OF  PRODUCTION    145 

to  exercise  political  pressure  upon  them  at  elec- 
tion time. 

On  the  other  hand,  as  the  receipts  from  the 
public  services  are  poured  into  the  treasury  of  the 
Government,  it  procures,  thanks  to  them,  con- 
siderable resources,  without  being  obliged  to  re- 
sort to  taxes,  and  very  often  it  devotes  the  greater 
part  of  these  revenues  to  unproductive  expendi- 
ture for  the  army  and  navy. 

Thus  for  example,  in  Prussia,  in  the  budget 
for  1909-1910,  the  net  revenues  for  the  properties 
and  enterprises  of  the  State  were  estimated  as 
follows : 

Administration  of —  Marks 

Crown    lands 17,500,000 

Forests  57,980,000 

Mines,  Iron-works,  Salt-works 18,830,000 

Railroads  276,090,000 

Total 370,400,000 

More  than  370  millions  of  marks,  more  than 
four  hundred  million  francs  ($80,000,000),  of 
which  the  greater  part  served  to  build  forts,  to 
buy  cannon,  to  launch  dreadnoughts,  to  pay 
interest  on  a  public  debt  incurred  almost  wholly 
for  war  or  preparation  for  war. 

So  no  one  need  be  surprised  that,  under  these 
conditions,   the   socialists   of   Prussia,   and  in  a 


146  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

general  way  the  socialists  of  Germany, — I  mean 
those  who  have  not  surrendered  to  imperialism — ■ 
have  always  shown  themselves  far  from  en- 
thusiastic for  a  fiscal  collectivism,  the  develop- 
ment of  which  would  have  served,  above  all,  to 
consolidate  the  personal  power  of  the  Kaiser 
and  to  fatten  the  budgets  of  the  army  or  the 
navy. 

They  have  already  opposed  the  tobacco  monop- 
oly, proposed  by  Bismarck.  They  have  not 
desired  the  nationalization  of  the  Reichsbank  or 
the  statization  of  the  grain  trade.  They  have 
always  been  on  the  side  of  the  liberals  to  check 
attempts  which  some  wrongly  imagine  to  be  appli- 
cations of  the  socialist  idea. 

True,  this  opposition  to  the  State  industries  is 
weakening  or  is  altogether  disappearing,  in  coun- 
tries like  Switzerland,  France  and  Belgium, 
where  the  personal  power  of  a  monarch  does  not 
exist,  where  parliamentary  control  is  more  effec- 
tive, and  where  labor  has  more  political  power 
at  its  disposal. 

But  even  in  these  countries,  the  positive  advan- 
tages of  government  operation,  for  the  posts,  the 
telegraphs,  the  railroads  for  example,  should  not 
make  us  forget  their  disadvantages.  In  any  case, 
no  one  can  find  it  desirable  that  an  unlimited 
increase  of  the  number  of  functionaries  go  on 


SOCIALIZATION  OF  MEANS  OF  PRODUCTION  147 

increasing  the  powers  and  the  influence  of  the 
governments,  which,  however  they  may  affect 
democratic  appearances,  are  none  the  less  the 
organs  of  the  domination  of  one  class  over  an- 
other. 

So  it  is  only  when  the  workers  and  no  longer 
the  capitalists  shall  be  the  masters,  when,  once 
more  to  use  Menger's  expressions,  the  State  of 
force  shall  have  been  replaced  by  the  State  of 
labor,  that  the  advantages  of  the  extension  of  the 
collective  domain,  at  the  expense  of  private 
monopolies,  will  outweigh,  completely  and  finally, 
the  disadvantages  that  are  evident  today. 

But,  if  the  conquest  of  political  power  by  the 
workers  is  one  of  the  conditions  preliminary  to 
the  socialization  of  the  means  of  production  and 
exchange,  it  is  not  the  only  one. 

Even  then,  in  fact,  if  the  Government-State 
should  be  in  the  hands  of  the  workers,  instead  of 
being  in  the  hands  of  the  capitalists,  it  would 
remain  none  the  less  a  government,  which  might, 
like  its  predecessors,  abuse  the  powers  and  the 
resources  assured  to  it  by  the  exploitation  of  a 
domain  enormously  increased. 

That  is  why  the  other  condition,  sine  qua  non, 
of  the  collective  appropriation  of  the  principal 
means  of  labor  is  the  separation  of  the  Govern- 
ment-State from  the  Industrial-State. 


148  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

On  the  day,  in  fact,  when  that  separation  shall 
be  accomplished,  and  on  that  day  only,  it  will 
become  possible  to  extend  the  sphere  of  action  of 
the  State,  organ  of  management,  without  by  that 
very  fact  increasing  the  powers  of  the  State, 
organ  of  authority.  Furthermore,  it  would  be- 
come possible  to  restrict  the  powers  of  the  State, 
organ  of  authority,  while  extending  the  sphere  of 
action  of  the  State,  organ  of  management.  And 
if  in  our  thought  we  prolong  these  two  tendencies, 
the  ruling  tendencies  of  the  socialist  movement, 
to  their  final  conclusions,  we  shall  come  to  a  social 
system  in  which  the  functions  of  the  State,  organ 
of  authority,  are  reduced  to  the  minimum,  while 
the  functions  of  the  State,  organ  of  management, 
are  carried  to  the  maximum. 

That  is  what  Frederick  Engels  meant  when,  in 
his  "Socialism,  Utopian  and  Scientific,"  he  de- 
scribed, in  these  terms,  the  proletarian  revolution : 

"The  proletariat  seizes  the  public  power,  and 
by  means  of  this  transforms  the  socialized  means 
of  production,  slipping  from  the  hands  of  the 
bourgeoisie,  into  public  property.  By  this  act,  the 
proletariat  frees  the  means  of  production  from 
the  character  of  capital  they  have  thus  far  borne, 
and  gives  their  socialized  character  complete  free- 
dom to  work  itself  out.  Socialized  production 
upon  a  predetermined  plan  becomes  thenceforth 


SOCIALIZATION  OF  MEANS  OF  PRODUCTION   149 

possible.  The  development  of  production  makes 
the  existence  of  different  classes  of  society 
thenceforth  an  anachronism.  In  proportion  as 
anarchy  in  social  production  vanishes,  the  po- 
litical authority  of  the  State  dies  out.  Man,  at 
last  the  master  of  his  own  form  of  social  organ- 
ization, becomes  at  the  same  time  the  lord  over 
Nature,  his  own  master — free." 

Certainly,  we  are  still  far  from  that  final 
liberation,  and  at  this  time  when  militarism  and 
the  world-war  menace  the  modern  societies  with 
bankruptcy,  we  witness,  on  the  contrary,  a  simul- 
taneous development  of  the  authoritarian  and 
the  economic  functions  of  the  State. 

But  already,  at  the  very  least,  three  functions 
tend  to  differentiate  themselves,  and  more  and 
more,  in  proportion  as  the  State  industries  and 
monopolies  become  more  numerous,  there  is  an 
attempt  to  increase  their  autonomy  and  to  di- 
minish their  dependence  upon  the  Government 
proper. 

From  the  moment,  indeed,  that  the  State  and 
the  municipalities  assume  industrial  functions  of 
some  importance,  it  becomes,  to  use  Milhaud's 
expression,  impossible  to  pour  mechanically  the 
nationalized  or  municipalized  enterprises  into  the 
traditional  molds  of  the  municipal  or  national 
administrations,  shaped  for  other  needs. 


150  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

Between  the  State  or  the  municipality,  organs 
of  authority,  and  the  State  or  the  municipality, 
organs  of  management,  separation  becomes  neces- 
sary, either  giving  a  certain  autonomy  to  the 
industrial  bureaux,  or,  to  effect  a  more  complete 
separation,  establishing  public  service  corpora- 
tions, which  borrow  their  methods  from  private 
industry,  while  preserving,  in  a  manner  more  or 
less  complete,  the  rights  of  the  commonwealth. 


SECTION  I.    PUBLIC  CORPORATIONS 

It  is  perhaps  in  Belgium  that  one  found  before 
the  war  the  richest  collection  of  those  institutions 
which,  while  they  were  emanations  from  the 
State,  had  a  personality  clearly  distinct  from  that 
of  the  Government-State. 

When  Frere-Orban,  on  December  26,  1849, 
offered  his  plan  for  establishing  a  national  bank, 
he  gave  it  the  character  of  a  private  corporation, 
apart  from  requiring,  in  exchange  for  the  priv- 
ilege of  issuing  bank  notes,  the  right  for  the 
State  to  name  the  manager  and  to  participate  in 
the  profits.  But  a  few  years  later,  for  the 
municipal  bank,  and  the  savings  and  benefit  asso- 
ciation, he  took  the  initiative  of  creating  public 
institutions,  leaving  no  room  for  private  interests, 
but  clearly  distinct  from  the  Government-State. 


SOCIALIZATION  OF  MEANS  OF  PRODUCTION   151 

i.     The  Inter-Municipal  Bank 

In  order  to  facilitate  for  the  municipalities  the 
loans  that  they  are  often  obliged  to  negotiate  at 
the  time  of  undertaking  any  work  of  local  utility, 
the  Government,  at  the  suggestion  of  a  socialist, 
Haeck,  encouraged  the  establishment  of  the 
"Credit  Communal,"  a  corporation,  having  no 
other  stockholders  than  municipalities ;  its  articles 
of  organization  were  approved  by  the  royal  de- 
cree of  December  8,  1860. 

In  his  report  to  the  king,  Frere-Orban  denned 

the  character  of  this  institution  as  follows: 

To  create  a  stock  company,  whose  shares  should  be 
owned  by  the  municipalities  exclusively,  was  at  once  to 
limit  in  a  just  measure  the  risks  to  be  run,  and  to 
assure  to  the  municipalities  alone  the  profits  that  might 
have  been  hoped  for  by  a  company  of  capitalists.  Thus 
is  excluded  the  solidarity  which,  by  pledging  the  re- 
sponsibility of  the  municipality  for  interests  not  its 
own,  and  pledging  the  municipalities  each  to  the  other, 
would  make  them  depart  from  the  sphere  of  action 
assigned  them  by  law.  And  as  for  mutuality,  the 
guarantee  that  it  gives  is  found  to  be  replaced  advan- 
tageously by  a  social  investment  which,  according  to  all 
probabilities,  will  not  exceed,  for  each  loan,  the  amount 
of  an  annuity. 

According  to  the  statutes,  the  "Credit  Com- 
munal" is  administered  by  a  committee  of  five 
members,  named  and  removable  by  the  general 
assembly.  The  Government  reserves  the  right 
to  appoint  a  commissioner  over  the  company.    He 


152  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

can  oppose  the  execution  of  any  measure  which 
might  be  contrary  either  to  the  law,  or  to  the 
statutes,  or  to  the  interests  of  the  municipalities 
or  of  the  State. 

It  is  interesting  at  this  time  to  note  that,  among 
the  persons  consulted  by  Frere-Orban  for  the 
elaboration  of  this  project,  was  the  governor  of 
the  National  Bank,  Bischofrsheim,  whom  we 
find  later  among  the  initiators  of  another  public 
corporation,  the  National  Interurban  Railway 
Company. 

2.     The  Savings  and  Annuity  Bank 

Scarcely  had  the  "Credit  Communal"  been 
founded  when  Frere-Orban  proposed  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  other  great  public  corporation 
which  remains,  with  the  abolition  of  the  octrois, 
the  most  remarkable  effort  of  his  governmental 
career,  the  General  Savings  and  Annuity  Bank 
(1862-1865). 

His  attempt,  however,  met  with  active  resist- 
ance. He  was  reproached  with  wishing  to  cen- 
tralize everything  and  create  a  new  monopoly. 
"From  progress  to  progress,"  cried  a  deputy,  M. 
Julliot,  "we  shall  all  be  enveloped  in  the  nets  of 
the  State,  the  individual  will  no  longer  exist  in 
our  history,  and  our  descendants  will  have  to  pay 
an  admittance  fee  to  look  at  a  free  man." 


SOCIALIZATION  OF  MEANS  OF  PRODUCTION   153 

Although  the  proposed  charter  gave  a  large 
measure  of  autonomy  to  the  bank,  the  opposition 
took  great  pleasure  in  confounding  it  with  the 
State  itself.  They  repeated  ad  nauseam  that  the 
State  was  making  itself  a  banker,  that  the  State 
made  itself  the  direct  debtor  of  the  depositors, 
that  the  Savings  Bank  was  only  a  mask  and  a 
fiction.  And,  as  the  author  of  the  project  replied 
that,  by  the  legal  device  of  civil  personification, 
he  gave  the  Savings  Bank  a  distinct  individuality, 
one  of  his  opponents,  M.  Denayer,  exclaimed: 
"But  if  this  is  so,  you  can  erect  into  civil  person- 
alities all  the  wheels  of  the  Government." 

He  did  not  realize  how  truly  he  was  speaking. 

The  experience  of  the  Credit  Communal  and 
of  the  Savings  Bank  was  not  slow  in  showing, 
in  fact,  that  the  system  inaugurated  by  Frere- 
Orban  presented  the  greatest  advantages  and  con- 
ferred upon  the  artificial  persons  thus  created  an 
autonomy  which  was  neither  a  mask  nor  a 
fiction. 

Let  us  recall,  for  example,  the  fact  that  in 
1900,  that  is  to  say  at  a  time  when  the  Belgian 
government  was  putting  the  socialists,  so  to 
speak,  outside  the  common  law,  we  see  the  direc- 
tors of  the  Savings  Bank  granting  to  the  Maison 
du  Peuple  of  Brussels,  through  the  intermediary 
of  the  union  of  the  members  of  the  Parti  Ouvrier, 


154  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

an  advance  of  1,200,000  francs  for  the  construc- 
tion of  its  central  building.  Now  what  the  Sav- 
ings Bank  did,  the  State,  the  Government-State, 
certainly  would  not  have  done. 

3.     The  Inter-Urban  Railway  Company 

The  success  of  the  two  great  creations  of 
Frere-Orban  in  the  field  of  credit  gave  to  the 
Liberal  government  of  1884  the  idea  of  applying 
analogous  formulas  to  the  creation  of  a  national 
inter-urban  railway  company. 

The  principal  initiative  in  the  project  was  taken 
by  M.  Bischoffsheim. 

In  a  pamphlet  published  by  him  (1884)  in 
collaboration  with  M.  Wellens,  the  governor  of 
the  Belgian  National  Bank,  he  held  that  the  one 
way  to  avoid,  once  for  all,  in  establishing  the 
secondary  system,  the  disadvantages  of  the  plan 
of  concessions  to  private  companies  and  those 
of  direct  operation  by  the  Government-State,  was 
to  create  a  national  Interurban  Railway  Com- 
pany, which  should  occupy  a  position  analogous 
to  that  of  the  "Credit  Communal."    He  said : 

Just  as  that  society  deals  with  the  matter  of  municipal 
loans,  so  the  new  company  would  have  the  mission  of 
centralizing  all  operations  concerning  interurban  rail- 
ways ;  it  would  procure  the  capital  necessary  for  their 
construction  and  operation ;  it  will  everywhere  introduce 
the  principles  of  unity  and  of  strict  economy,  and  finally, 


SOCIALIZATION  OF  MEANS  OF  PRODUCTION   155 

it  will  reserve  to  the  municipalities,  the  provinces  and 
the  State  the  profits  from  operation. 

The  establishment  of  a  company  under  these  condi- 
tions, placed  under  the  control  of  the  authorities,  dis- 
misses all  idea  of  stock-jobbing  or  speculation.  Although 
having  the  form  of  an  industrial  corporation,  it  will 
not  have  its  special  character,  that  of  representing  pri- 
vate interests. 

In  other  words  the  Company,  since  the  Government 
itself  has  made  it,  will  be  concerned  only  for  the 
general  interest,  meanwhile  preserving  the  advantages 
of  private  companies,  namely,  of  acting  with  more 
rapidity,  with  more  initiative,  of  examining  projects 
with  complete  independence,  outside  of  local  influences, 
political  or  otherwise,  and  finally,  by  conforming  better 
to  the  necessities  engendered  by  circumstances  and 
facts. 

In  the  thought  of  its  promoters,  the  interurban 
railway  company  was  therefore  to  be,  like  the 
"Credit  Communal,"  a  corporation  composed  ex- 
clusively of  public  officers. 

The  Parliament,  on  the  contrary,  while  assur- 
ing the  preponderance  of  the  collective  interest, 
thought  it  better  to  allow  private  persons  to  sub- 
scribe a  part  of  the  shares. 

The  law  of  May  28,  1884,  in  fact,  revised  and 
amended  June  24,  1885,  authorized  the  Govern- 
ment to  approve  the  charter,  supplementary  to 
the  law,  of  a  company  established  at  Brussels 
under  the  name  of  National  Interurban  Railway 
Company. 


156  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

It  is  to  this  company  that  the  interurban  rail- 
ways are  conceded  by  royal  decree. 

Under  the  terms  of  the  charter,  the  company's 
capital,  equal  to  the  cost  of  the  lines  to  be  con- 
structed, and  eventually  to  that  of  their  equip- 
ment, is  divided  into  as  many  series  of  shares  as 
there  may  be  lines  conceded.  At  least  two  thirds 
of  the  shares  of  each  series  must  be  subscribed 
by  the  State,  the  provinces  and  the  municipalities. 

In  view  of  the  further  fact  that  by  far  the 
greater  part  of  the  capital  has  been  subscribed  by 
the  State,  the  provinces  and  the  municipalities, 
we  find  ourselves  confronting  a  stock  company 
made  up  almost  exclusively  of  public  officials 
over  whom  the  State  keeps  strict  control. 

The  president  of  the  council  of  administration 
is  appointed  by  the  King  to  serve  six  years.  The 
other  members  of  the  council  are  named  half  by 
the  King  and  half  by  the  general  meeting  of  the 
stockholders.  The  general  manager  is  appointed 
and  may  be  removed  by  the  King. 

As  a  general  rule,  the  company  does  not  itself 
operate  the  lines  that  it  constructs,  but  leases 
them  to  other  companies,  in  which,  oftener  than 
not,  private  interests  predominate. 

The  tariffs  are  regulated  by  the  national  com- 
pany, subject  to  the  approval  of  the  Government ; 
nevertheless  the  Government  has  always  the  right 


SOCIALIZATION  OF  MEANS  OF  PRODUCTION    157 

to  raise  rates  or  to  forbid  their  being  lowered. 
The  Government  can  enjoin  the  execution  of  any 
measure  which,  in  its  view,  would  be  contrary  to 
the  law,  to  the  charter  of  the  company,  or  to 
the  interests  of  the  State.  Every  year  the  Min- 
ister of  Public  Works  files  with  the  Chamber  of 
Deputies  the  report  of  the  administrative  council 
making  known  the  condition  of  the  company's 
business. 

It  is  generally  admitted  that  the  organization 
created  by  the  laws  of  1884-1885  has  given  really 
remarkable  results,  considering  the  rapidity  and 
the  amplitude  with  which  they  have  brought 
about  the  increase  of  the  railway  lines  and  the 
development  of  the  socially-owned  capital. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  policy  adopted  by 
the  national  company  has  raised  a  sufficient  num- 
ber of  criticisms,  which  have  been  developed  by 
M.  Gheude,  in  his  remarkable  report  presented 
to  the  assembly  of  delegates  of  the  permanent 
deputations  (May,  1909)   (page  14)  : 

The  company,  he  writes,  has,  especially  in  these  last 
fifteen  years,  favored  private  interests  rather  than  the 
public  interest.  It  has  given  concessions  for  the  opera- 
tion of  numerous  lines  without  adjudication,  has  re- 
nounced the  forfeiture  clause  which  restrained  improper 
exploitation,  and  has  discouraged  instead  of  promoting 
the  effort  of  municipalities  to  operate  certain  neighbor- 
hood lines  for  themselves. 


158  SOCIALISM   VERSUS  THE  STATE 

Moreover,  instead  of  itself  furnishing  electric 
power  to  the  operating  companies — which  it  had 
begun  to  do  with  satisfactory  results — we  have 
seen  it  abandon  the  course  to  which  it  had  com- 
mitted itself,  and  treat  with  private  companies 
for  the  purchase  of  the  electric  current. 

These  abdications  to  the  profit  of  capitalist 
interests  are  no  less  frequent,  moreover,  in  the 
State  railways  than  in  the  inter-urban  railways. 
They  result  from  a  state  of  mind  which  dominates 
all  capitalist  institutions.  But,  taking  everything 
into  account,  the  fact  remains  that  the  National 
Interurban  Railway  Company  constitutes  a  very 
happy  application  of  the  principle  of  necessary 
separation  between  the  government  of  the  State 
and  the  management  of  public  enterprises. 

Also  we  have  seen,  in  these  last  years,  this 
formula  extended  to  other  fields. 

In  1904,  for  example,  Hector  Denis  proposed 
to  create  a  national  coal  mining  company  in  the 
north  of  Belgium,  to  develop  certain  coal  deposits 
of  La  Campine.  This  proposition  was  not  wel- 
comed, and  the  greater  part  of  the  new  coal 
fields  was  handed  over  to  private  capitalists. 

But  later,  taking  up  another  idea  of  Hector 
Denis,  the  Government  created  an  interurban 
water  company  (1913)  and  a  national  company 
for  the  building  of  low-priced  dwellings  (1914). 


SOCIALIZATION  OF  MEANS  OF  PRODUCTION    159 

The  charters  of  these  two  companies  are  mod- 
eled on  that  of  the  National  Interurban  Railway- 
Company,  and  it  is  very  probable  that  after  the 
war  other  companies  of  this  sort  will  be  organ- 
ized, in  various  fields,  to  assist  in  national  recon- 
struction. 


SECTION    II.     AUTONOMY    OF    PUBLIC 
SERVICES 

The  question  of  the  autonomy  of  public  serv- 
ices does  not  date  from  yesterday.  Napoleon 
once  said,  in  speaking  of  the  Bank  of  France :  "I 
wish  it  to  be  in  the  hands  of  the  Government, 
but  not  too  much  so." 

And  half  a  century  later,  when  Frere-Orban 
organized  the  "Credit  Communal,"  the  Savings 
and  Annuity  Bank,  and  the  trust  companies  for 
the  widows  and  orphans  of  state  functionaries 
and  agents,  he  replied  to  those  who  would  re- 
proach him  with  desiring  to  centralize  everything 
in  the  hands  of  the  Government  by  recognizing 
in  these  institutions  a  distinct  individuality,  and 
consequently  an  autonomy  more  or  less  extensive. 

But  it  was  naturally  when  the  State,  for 
various  reasons,  was  led  to  nationalize  great 
industries,  such  as  the  railroads  and  mines,  and 
when  the  municipalities  in  their  turn  multiplied 


160  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

their  direct  enterprises,  that  the  question  opened 
up  in  all  its  fullness. 

At  first  the  State  merely  created  new  ministers. 
The  national  enterprises  were  erected  into  distinct 
departments.  It  was  attempted  to  give  their 
organization  a  flexibility  greater  than  that  of  the 
administrations  of  the  Government-State.  Then 
a  further  step  was  taken,  and  in  Prussia,  for 
example,  for  the  mines,  and  in  Switzerland, 
Italy,  France,  for  the  railroads,  the  principle  of 
the  autonomy  of  public  services  was  proclaimed 
and  more  or  less  radical  consequences  drawn 
from  it,  from  the  triple  view-point  of  finance,  the 
administrative  organization  and  the  rights  of 
those  employed. 


CHAPTER  I 


FINANCIAL  AUTONOMY 


So  long  as  the  confusion  between  the  Govern- 
ment-State and  the  management- State  persists, 
the  public  services  have  no  budget  distinct  from 
the  general  budget,  and  it  is  extremely  difficult, 
or  even  impossible,  to  take  account  of  the  real 
financial  position  of  the  national  enterprises,  or, 
mutatis  mutandis,  the  municipal  enterprises. 

In  Belgium,  for  example,  it  was  long  supposed 
that  the  railways  brought  considerable  profits  to 
the  State.  The  minister  Vanden  Peereboom  was 
called  the  foster-father  of  the  minister  of  finance. 
M.  Helleputte,  one  of  his  successors,  said  that  the 
railway  system  was  "a  veritable  milch  cow  for 
the  Treasury."  And  on  the  strength  of  these 
affirmations,  the  members  of  Parliament  incess- 
antly demanded  lower  tariffs  for  industry  and 
commerce,  and  higher  wages  for  the  employees. 
But  in  his  report  on  the  railway  budget  for  1900 
and  in  the  following  reports,  M.  Jules  Renkin 
undertook  to  put  Parliament  on  its  guard  against 
this  optimism.  He  maintained  that  they  had  been 
enthralled  by  an  illusion,  and  that  the  situation 

161 


162  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

was  far  less  brilliant  than  the  system  of  account- 
ing adopted  by  the  Administration  tended  to  make 
one  think. 

Since  1906,  moreover,  new  rules  for  account- 
ing have  been  adopted  for  the  railways,  which 
cling  closer  to  reality.  Now,  by  applying  these 
new  formulas  retroactively  to  the  seventy-five 
fiscal  periods  already  closed,  the  Administration 
has  arrived  at  a  figure  of  thirty  million  francs 
for  the  total  profit. 

This  does  not  at  all  mean  thirty  millions  of  net 
profits,  all  charges  deducted,  and  it  seems,  on 
the  whole,  that  the  excess  of  receipts  over  ex- 
penses just  about  suffices,  in  general,  to  liquidate 
the  interest  charges  for  each  fiscal  period. 

In  other  countries,  especially  Switzerland,  at- 
tempts have  been  made  for  a  long  time  to  put 
an  end  to  the  confusion  existing  between  the 
State  budgets  and  the  railway  budgets. 

In  his  book  "Les  Methodes  budgetaires  d'  une 
Democratic,"  M.  de  Lichtervelde  shows  very 
plainly  that  if  strict  unity  in  the  budget  seemed 
most  useful  to  assure  clearness  in  the  accounts 
of  the  police-State  of  earlier  days,  it  is  no  longer 
justified  in  its  primitive  form,  now  that  the  State 
has  taken  over  new  prerogatives,  making  itself 
a  manufacturer,  educator,  transporter. 

Thus  arises  the  distinction  which  tends  to  be 


FINANCIAL  AUTONOMY  163 

made  more  and  more  between  the  general  budget 
and  the  supplementary  budgets,  specializing  the 
receipts  and  expenditures  of  the  various  enter- 
prises that  the  State  administers. 

Thus  Sweden,  which  already  had  a  special 
railway  budget,  separated  from  the  general 
budget  in  1912  the  posts,  the  telegraphs,  the 
public  lands  and  the  water  power  plants. 

Just  so  in  France,  there  exist  eight  supple- 
mentary budgets:  Mint,  Savings  Bank,  National 
Printing  House,  Legion  of  Honor,  Naval  Sick  . 
Benefit  Bank,  Central  School  of  Arts  and  Crafts, 
Consolidated  Railways,  State  Railways.  The 
supplementary  budget  of  telephones  was  sup- 
pressed in  1906,  but  in  1910,  M.  Steeg  introduced 
a  bill  to  re-establish  it,  urging  the  necessity  for 
the  State-employer,  to  have,  like  any  business 
house,  an  exact  account  of  its  operations,  so  as 
to  be  able  to  borrow,  or  to  build  up  reserves. 

It  would  be  wrong,  however,  to  consider  these 
supplementary  budgets  as  models  of  their  kind. 
Even  the  accounting  system  of  the  railway 
administration  is  unsatisfactory.  "Nevertheless, 
says  M.  Engelhardt,1  we  have  here  an  enterprise 
whose  receipts  and  expenditures  are  compared, 
not  as  formerly  in  columns  of  statistics,  but  in 

1  Engelhardt,    L'Autonomie    budgetaire    des    exploitations 
industrielles  de  l'Etat,  p.  58. 


164  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

an  operating  account.  Moreover,  there  is  even 
a  plant  account.  Unfortunately  there  are  com- 
plaints regarding  these  two  accounts."  The 
annual  operating  account  may  be  criticised  as  too 
often  showing  net  profits  that  are  fictitious ;  ex- 
penditures are  carried  to  the  plant  account  which 
ought  to  be  carried  in  the  operating  account.  As 
for  the  capital  invested,  it  may  be  said  that  the 
State  does  not  know ;  it  is  impossible  to  value  it 
by  methods  of  accounting,  and  it  can  not  even  be 
estimated  accurately  in  documents  independent 
of  the  accounts. 

It  is  not  so  with  the  Swiss  federal  railways. 
Here  we  meet  complete  financial  autonomy.  The 
Railway  Administration  has  a  property  of  its 
own ;  if  it  has  not  the  right  to  contract  directly 
for  loans,  at  least  certain  loans  of  the  Confedera- 
tion are  set  aside  for  the  federal  railways,  which 
bear  the  charges  of  interest  and  amortization. 

Contrary  to  the  practice  in  Prussia,  where  the 
-railway  administration,  a  fiscal  instrument,  pours 
its  profits  into  the  national  treasury,  in  Switzer- 
land the  administration  keeps  its  profits,  just  as 
it  bears  its  losses,  should  these  occur. 

The  accounts  of  the  railroads,  says  Article  7  of  the 
federal  law  of  October  15,  1897,  shall  be  separated  from 
those  of  the  other  branches  of  the  federal  administra- 
tion and  kept  in  such  a  manner  that  the  financial  situa- 
tion may  be  accurately  determined  at  all  times. 


FINANCIAL  AUTONOMY  165 

The  net  profit  of  the  federal  railways  is  appropriated 
first  to  the  payment  of  interest  and  to  the  amortization 
of  the  debt  of  the  railways. 

Twenty  per  cent  of  the  remaining  surplus  shall  be 
paid  into  a  special  reserve  fund,  kept  distinct  from  the 
rest  of  the  assets  of  the  federal  railways,  until  this  fund 
with  its  accumulated  interest  has  reached  the  sum  of 
50,000,000  francs.  The  remaining  eighty  per  cent  of  the 
surplus  must  be  used  in  the  interest  of  the  federal  rail- 
ways to  improve  and  to  alleviate  the  conditions  of 
transportation,  and  especially  to  reduce  the  passenger 
and.  freight  rates  and  to  extend  the  Swiss  railway 
system,  particularly  branch  lines. 

When  the  ordinary  receipts  with  the  unexpended  cash 
balance  do  not  suffice  to  pay  operating  expenses,  with 
interest  and  amortization  on  the  original  capital,  it  is 
permitted  to  draw  from  the  reserve  fund. 

Under  these  conditions,  the  railway  administra- 
tion does  not  differ  financially  from  a  private 
industrial  enterprise  except  in  the  fact,  quite  to 
its  advantage,  that  having  no  capital  stock,  it  pays 
no  dividends,  and  can  apply  all  its  profits  to  its 
improvement. 

Financial  autonomy,  however,  which  aims 
chiefly  at  an  accurate  accounting  system,  and 
serves  especially  to  fix  the  responsibility  of  the 
managers,  would  contribute  but  little  to  the 
improvement  of  public  services  if  administrative 
autonomy  were  not  realized  along  with  it.  The 
most  remarkable  government  railway  system  in 
Europe,  and  we  may  even  say  the  most  remark- 
able  of   all   European    railway   systems   is   the 


166  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

Prussian  State  Railway,  which  has  not  financial 
autonomy,  but  is  characterized  by  a  notable  de- 
gree of  administrative  autonomy. 

It  would  be  manifestly  superfluous  to  apply 
the  term  financial  autonomy,  in  speaking  of 
supplementary  budgets  in  which  the  receipts  and 
expenditures  of  certain  State  enterprises  are 
specialized.  If  they  have  not  administrative 
autonomy  at  the  same  time,  their  book-keeping 
individuality  may  be  useful,  in  affording  a  more 
exact  accounting  of  the  results  of  their  operation ; 
but  they  remain  within  the  grasp  of  the  Govern- 
ment-State ;  they  do  not  control  the  profits  that 
they  realize ;  they  may,  in  spite  of  their  separate 
book-keeping,  be  constrained  by  the  Government 
to  operate  in  the  interest  of  revenue,  rather  than 
in  the  general  interest. 


CHAPTER  II 

ADMINISTRATIVE  AUTONOMY 

From  the  moment  when  national  industries 
take  on  some  importance,  the  differentiation  be- 
tween the  authoritarian  State  and  the  employing 
State  quickly  asserts  itself. 

Under  penalty  of  being  clearly  inferior  to 
private  enterprises,  public  enterprises  must  bor- 
row their  methods,  must  detach  themselves  from 
the  constraint  of  governmental  traditions,  must 
free  themselves  from  political  interference,  must 
acquire  a  liberty  of  action  unknown  to  the  au- 
thoritarian bureaucracies  of  other  governmental 
departments. 

This  liberty  of  action  is  more  or  less  complete. 
Administrative  autonomy  has  various  degrees. 
But  wherever  there  are  State  industries,  the  Gov- 
ernment is,  sooner  or  later,  led,  under  the  press- 
ure of  facts,  to  give  them  an  individuality  distinct 
from  that  of  the  State  properly  so  called,  the 
State  as  an  organ  of  authority. 

Such  is  the  case,  for  example,  with  the  admin- 
istration of  mines  in  Prussia  and  with  most  of  the 

167 


168  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

State  railways,  in  Europe  as  in  South  Africa  and 
Australia. 

I.  The  Administration  of  Mines  in  Prussia 
The  mining  industry  of  Sarre,  which  belongs 
to  the  revenue,  has  a  quite  extended  administra- 
tive autonomy.  The  Directing  Committee  operat- 
ing the  mines  belonging  to  the  revenue,  which 
has  charge  of  the  commercial  and  administrative 
management,  exercises  functions  very  similar  to 
those  of  the  board  of  directors  of  a  private  com- 
pany. The  actual  operation  of  the  mines  is 
entrusted  to  engineers  having  very  extended 
powers,  while  subject  to  the  authority  of  the 
Directing  Committee. 

To  enable  the  reader  to  appreciate  such  a 
system,  we  can  not  do  better  than  to  quote  the 
opinion  of  a  French  engineer  distinctly  hostile  to 
the  statization  of  coal  mines,  M.  Weiss,  who  in  a 
pamphlet  devoted  to  the  operation  of  the  fiscal 
mines  of  Sarre,  concludes  in  these  terms: 

Considered  as  a  whole,  the  Administration  of  Mines 
is  endowed  with  a  strong  organization,  which  permits 
it  to  compete  in  the  industrial  field  with  the  best  man- 
aged private  enterprises.  We  must  say  that  in  spite  of 
the  habits  of  authority  inherent  in  the  race,  in  spite 
of  what  may  be  called  Prussian  militarism,  the  Admin- 
istration is  highly  decentralized;  responsibilities  are 
well  defined:  a  large  initiative  is  left  to  the  agents  zvho 
carry  out  orders.  .  .  .  The  working  force  is  well 
disciplined  and  profoundly  attached  to  the  mine.     It  is 


ADMINISTRATIVE  AUTONOMY  169 

through  this  solid  organization  that  the  Prussian  State, 
operating  the  largest  mine  field  in  the  world,  has 
arrived  at  brilliant  results,  in  spite  of  the  difficulties 
inherent  in  all  State  operation. 

Let  us  hasten  to  add  that,  if  the  Administra- 
tion of  the  Mines  of  Sarre  may  be  cited  as  a 
characteristic  example  of  the  tendency  which 
exists,  even  now,  to  differentiation  between  the 
State,  organ  of  authority  and  the  State,  organ  of 
management,  we  are  as  far  as  possible  from 
seeing  in  it  a  partial  application  of  collectivist 
ideas. 

To  begin  with,  the  differentiation  is  far  from 
being  complete.  The  products  of  the  mine  are 
sold  for  the  profit  of  the  Government.  The 
exploitation  has  a  clearly  fiscal  character.  Its 
essential  aim  is  to  provide  resources  for  the 
State,  for  its  army  and  navy.  Any  other  con- 
sideration, such  as  the  advantage  of  the  public 
or  the  improvement  of  conditions  for  its  work- 
men, is  for  it  absolutely  secondary.  In  the  second 
place,  the  laborers  are  still  wage-workers,  labor- 
ing for  the  capitalist  State,  instead  of  laboring 
for  private  capitalists.  They  have  no  participa- 
tion in  the  management  of  the  enterprise.  They 
are  not  even  represented  on  the  Directing  Com- 
mittee. They  have  not  the  right  to  organize, 
much  less  to  unite  in  one  union.    They  complain 


170  SOCIALISM   VERSUS  THE  STATE 

that  they  are  not  so  well  paid,  and  they  are  in 
any  case  not  so  free  as  the  workers  in  privately 
owned  industry,  for  example  the  workers  of  the 
Rhenish-Westphalian  Union. 

2.     The  State  Railways 

There  are  few  countries  today  where  the 
administration  of  state  railways  has  not  a  certain 
autonomy  as  regards  the  central  government.  An 
admirable  example  of  administrative  decentral- 
ization is  given  us  by  Prussia,  with  its  railway 
system  subdivided  into  twenty-one  local  divisions, 
each  enjoying  the  same  autonomy  and  the  same 
initiative  as  the  local  administrations  of  the 
mines  of  Sarre,  determining  for  themselves  the 
character  of  their  material,  going  into  the  market 
for  the  delivery  of  their  locomotives,  their  cars 
and  their  fuel,  and  deciding  matters  relating  to 
conditions  of  traffic  and  to  claims,  without  re- 
ferring them,  otherwise  than  by  way  of  informa- 
tion, to  the  central  Administration.  But  nowhere 
else  has  such  progress  been  made  in  this  direction 
as  in  Switzerland. 

Here  we  meet,  at  the  outset,  the  same  decen- 
tralization as  in  Prussia.  The  railway  system  is 
divided  into  five  districts.  Over  each  district  is 
placed  a  directorate  of  three  members,  who 
supervise  its  management,  prepare  its  budget  and 


ADMINISTRATIVE  AUTONOMY  171 

make  out  its  operating  accounts,  build  extensions, 
acquire  property,  dispensing  with  competitive 
bids  on  amounts  up  to  100,000  francs,  and  regu- 
late disputes  as  to  the  applications  of  tariffs  and 
the  loss,  damage  or  delay  of  shipments.  Along 
with  each  directorate  there  is  a  district  council, 
composed  of  fifteen  to  twenty  members,  nom- 
inated by  the  cantons  or  sub-cantons  of  the  dis- 
trict, which  passes  on  all  credits  outside  of  or  in 
excess  of  the  budget,  and  which  approves  the 
budgets,  accounts  and  annual  reports  of  the 
directorate  of  the  district. 

But  just  as  in  Prussia  the  central  administra- 
tion of  the  railways  is  directly  dependent  upon 
the  Minister  of  Public  Works,  so  in  Switzerland, 
the  general  direction  of  the  system  and  the 
responsibility  for  low-priced  service  belongs  to  a 
special  authority  established  by  law ;  the  General 
Directorate  of  the  Federal  Railways,  which,  on 
principle,  represents  them  as  against  third  parties 
in  administrative  and  legal  matters. 

This  directorate  prepares  the  annual  budget, 
balances  the  general  accounts  and  edits  the  report 
of  operations.  It  examines  and  executes  new 
undertakings,  it  prepares  plans  and  acquires 
operating  material,  it  closes  agreements  with 
other  transport  lines,  makes  out  the  time-tables, 
elaborates  the  tariffs,  regulates  the  services,  con- 


172  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

trols  the  receipts,  supervises  the  district  directo- 
rates, the  most  important  decisions  of  which  it 
ratines.  It  consists  of  a  college  of  five  members, 
chosen  for  six  years  (their  functions  coincide 
with  those  of  the  two  houses  of  a  legislature), 
invested  with  an  authority  and  a  power  which 
place  them  above  the  Federal  Council  from  which 
they  emanate.  "The  president  of  the  General 
Directorate,"  says  M.  Gariel,1  "is  the  real  chief 
of  the  federal  railways." 

A  council  of  administration  of  which  a  ma- 
jority of  the  members  are  elected  by  the  cantons 
and  who  represent  especially  the  business  element, 
assists  the  general  plans  for  buildings  and  ma- 
chines, the  maps  of  new  lines,  the  propositions 
for  improvements  in  operation ;  it  approves  con- 
struction and  delivery  contracts  in  excess  of 
500,000  francs;  it  revises  the  budget  plans,  it 
examines  the  accounts  and  the  reports  of  opera- 
tion, and  transmits  them  to  the  Federal  Council. 
It  also  fixes  the  basic  rules  for  figuring  salaries, 
and  frames  the  charters  of  banks  for  the  benefit 
of  railway  employees. 

That  the  autonomy  of  the  federal  railways  is 
a  real  thing,  is  shown  by  the  conflicts  which  break 


1  Gariel,  La  Centralisation  (conomiquc  en  Suisse.   Deuxi4m© 
fascicule:  Les  Chemina  de  fer  jediraux. 


ADMINISTRATIVE  AUTONOMY  173 

out  quite  frequently  between  their  manager  and 
the  Federal  Council. 

As  M.  de  Lichtervelde  points  out  in  his  inter- 
esting study,  the  Swiss  railway  administration 
regards  itself  as  an  independent  authority.  When 
it  writes  to  the  Federal  Council,  remarks  a  parlia- 
mentarian who  thinks  it  is  going  too  far,  it 
speaks  of  "your"  functionaries,  quite  as  if  it  were 
not  itself  composed  of  State  officials.  In  men- 
tioning the  railway  department  and  the  federal 
authorities,  the  report  of  the  management  desig- 
nates them  as  "authorities  of  surveillance."  In 
1908  the  Department  of  Railways  was  obliged  to 
threaten  the  federal  railways — remember  this 
means  the  railways  of  the  Swiss  State — to  make 
them  defer  to  the  courts ;  to  the  great  scandal  of 
many  parliamentarians,  certain  commissions  were 
very  ill  received  by- the  railway  authorities;  the 
council  of  administration  treated  the  remarks  of 
one  commission,  from  the  National  Council,  as 
"unjust  attacks";  they  spoke  of  its  "superficial 
resolutions,"  of  its  inconceivable  frivolity. 

Let  us  add  that  this  independent  bearing  does 
not  fail  to  appear  excessive  to  many  politicians. 

Thus  in  1908,  at  a  moment  when  the  situation 
of  the  railroads  seemed  rather  bad,  causing  gen- 
eral irritation,  parliamentary  commissions  were 
appointed  to  inquire  into  the  causes  of  the  deficit. 


174  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

The  General  Directorate  was  accused  of  compro- 
mising the  credit  of  the  Confederation,  and  the 
Federal  Council  frankly  complained  of  being 
despoiled. 

Voicing   these    complaints,    M.    Secretan    said 

(December  8)  at  the  National  Council: 

Your  commission  has  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that 
there  is  too  great  a  tendency  to  make  the  General 
Directorate  and  the  Administration  of  the  federal  rail- 
ways independent  of  the  Federal  Council;  there  has 
been  a  failure  to  maintain  between  this  Administration 
and  the  Public  Powers  the  necessary  contact  and  the 
indispensable  subordination.  With  their  General  Direc- 
torate, almost  omnipotent,  with  their  Council  of  Admin- 
istration, which  assumes  toward  the  Federal  Assembly 
the  air  of  a  petty  independent  parliament,  the  federal 
railways  today  constitute  a  State  within  the  State,  which 
negotiates  with  the  Federal  Council,  and  endures  with 
difficulty  any  control  by  the  Chambers.  It  is  high  time 
that  the  Federal  Council  resume  control  of  the  whole 
enterprise,  that  the  General  Directorate  be  immediately 
subordinated  to  it,  and  that  we  eliminate  from  the 
present  organization  the  useless  and  even  hurtful  com- 
plexities which  exist  in  no  other  federal  administration.1 

It  seems  however  that  since  then  the  criticisms 
have  become  much  milder.  The  Government  is 
indeed  planning  a  revision  of  the  law,  but  it  seems 
that  the  principal  changes  are  to  be  rather  in  the 
direction  of  simplifying  the  too  complicated  in- 
terior administration  of  the  railroads. 

Moreover,    the    crisis    through    which    these 


1  De  Lichtervelde,  p.  142. 


ADMINISTRATIVE  AUTONOMY  175 

passed  in  1908  is  over.  The  profits  have  un- 
expectedly improved,  and  if  certain  persons  still 
think  it  might  be  useful  to  increase  the  super- 
visory power  of  the  Federal  Council,  it  is  certain 
that  the  autonomy  of  the  management  has  never 
been  seriously  endangered. 

It  is  moreover  to  this  autonomy  that  non- 
partisan observers,  like  Lichtervelde  and  Leener,1 
attribute  the  satisfying  results  obtained  during 
these  last  years. 

As  they  point  out,  the  Swiss  railways  are 
known  and  appreciated  by  innumerable  travelers 
who  visit  them  each  year.  They  take  pleasure  in 
praising  the  regularity  of  the  service  and  the 
facilities  offered  the  public.  On  the  other  hand, 
a  financial  equilibrium  seems  to  be  established. 

The  balance  sheet  for  1910,  writes  M.  Lichtervelde, 
shows  a  considerable  profit;  that  for  1911  is  announced 
under  favorable  auspices,  and  a  profit  of  7,000,000  francs 
for  1912  is  now  expected.  Better  still,  it  has  been 
found  possible  to  reduce  expenses  considerably.  Thanks 
to  the  accounting  system  used,  the  trouble  has  been 
brought  to  light  and  the  urgent  need  of  a  remedy  has 
been  recognized  by  all.  The  General  Directorate  has 
succeeded  in  reducing,  from  1908  to  1910,  the  loco- 
motive-mile cost  by  5%,  while  the  passenger-mileage 
has  increased  by  about  14%  and  the  freight-mileage  by 
about  8%.  It  has  succeeded  in  stopping  short  the 
growing  increase  in  the  number  of  employees,  in  reduc- 
ing the  operating  cost  to  65.48%  despite  an  increase  in 

1  De  Leener,  La  Politique  dcs  Transports  en  Belgique,  p.  65. 


176  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

wages,  and  in  diminishing  the  cost  of  track  maintenance 
by  a  better  disposal  of  the  force  employed.  All  these 
measures  would  have  been  impossible  but  for  the 
autonomy  which  removed  the  authorities  responsible 
for  the  railways  from  the  pressure  of  job-hunting 
politicians,  for  whom  the  suppression  of  a  useless  train 
or  a  superfluous  extension  is  a  personal  check  and  a 
danger  of  non-re-election. 

And  M.  de  Leener  adds : 

We  have  had  occasion  to  verify  on  the  spot  the 
accuracy  of  the  observations  gathered  by  M.  de  Lichter- 
velde.  The  whole  administration  of  the  federal  rail- 
ways is  animated  by  the  spirit  which  assures  the  success 
of  great  industrial  enterprises. 

Let  us  add  that  all  possible  measures  are  taken 
to  reduce  political  interference  to  a  minimum. 
The  Federal  Council  names  only  the  five  mem- 
bers of  the  General  Directorate  and  the  twenty- 
five  members  of  the  district  directorates,  and 
these  functionaries,  again,  are  appointed  for  a 
term  of  not  less  than  six  years.  All  other  ap- 
pointments are  removed  from  political  influence, 
and  are  made  on  the  principle  of  decentralization, 
which  in  a  general  way  governs  the  organization 
of  the  enterprise:  the  personnel  of  the  central 
administration  is  named  by  the  General  Directo- 
rate, and  that  of  each  district  by  the  district 
directorate.  No  appointment  is  made  either  by 
the  Council  of  Administration  or  by  the  district 
councils;  the  Council  of  Administration  presents 
its  candidates  for  the  General  Directorate,  but 


ADMINISTRATIVE  AUTONOMY  177 

the  Federal  Council  is  not  obliged  to  ratify  its 
choice. 

It  is  to  be  regretted  that  such  examples  do  not 
seem  to  have  had  much  influence  upon  the  de- 
cisions of  the  special  commission  appointed  in 
1912  by  the  Belgian  government  "for  the  pur- 
pose of  studying  under  all  its  aspects  the  ques- 
tion of  autonomy  for  the  State  railways  and 
shipping,  together  with  all  related  questions." 

j.  '  The  Project  of  a  National  Railway 
System  in  Belgium 

In  its  report  offered  on  December  2,  1913,  in 
which  politicians  and  officials  sat  side  by  side 
with  manufacturers  and  technical  experts,  this 
commission  concluded  in  the  clearest  possible 
terms  in  favor  of  autonomy. 

It  proposes,  ia  effect,  that  a  responsible  per- 
sonality, the  National  State  Railway  Administra- 
tion, be  substituted  for  the  Minister  of  Railways, 
with  a  view  to  the  conservation,  the  operation  and 
the  extension  of  the  State  railways. 

The  National  Administration  would  not  be — 
like  for  example  the  National  Interurban  Railway 
Company — a  corporation,  the  existence  of  the 
latter  presupposing  the  union  of  several  stock- 
holders, whereas  in  the  present  case,  the  State 
alone  is  interested. 


178  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

The  law  would  create  an  organism  of  a  special 
kind,  and  would  clothe  it  with  civil  personality 
with  regard  to  the  various  mandates  that  will 
devolve  upon  it.  Nevertheless,  the  National  Rail- 
way Administration  would  possess  nothing  of  its 
own.  It  would  acquire,  hold  and  alienate  in  the 
name  of  and  for  the  account  of  the  State.  It 
would  be,  in  fact,  the  agent  of  the  State.  The 
duration  of  its  existence  would  depend  on  the 
legislator.  It  would  be  managed  by  a  council  of 
administration  and  supervised  by  a  board  of 
commissioners. 

The  members  of  the  Council  of  Administration, 
to  the  number  of  fifteen,  should  be  appointed, 
and  if  need  be,  removed  by  the  King,  at  the 
instance  of  the  Ministers  of  Railways  and  of 
Finance.  They  could  not  take  part  in  the  Parlia- 
ment, nor  fill  positions  with  salaries  paid  by  the 
State. 

The  members  of  the  board  of  commissioners, 
to  the  number  of  seven,  should  be  named  by  the 
House  of  Representatives  (four)  and  the  Senate 
(three).    They  might  belong  to  the  Parliament. 

Under  these  conditions,  the  function  of  the 
Minister  of  Railways  becomes  for  the  most  part 
supervisory.  He  remains  strictly  responsible  for 
the  observation  of  the  laws.  His  intervention  is 
required  in  all  operations  involving  the  resources 


ADMINISTRATIVE  AUTONOMY  179 

of  the  Treasury  or  the  credit  of  the  State.  His 
approval  is  necessary  before  the  budgets  can  be 
presented  to  Parliament. 

As  for  the  legislative  Chambers,  they  con- 
tinue, by  adopting,  rejecting  or  amending  the 
budgets  and  the  accounts,  to  exercise  their 
sovereign  activity.  But,  in  fact,  the  Council  of 
Administration  finds  itself  invested  with  great 
freedom  of  action.  It  appoints  the  executive 
staff,  it  determines  the  changes  to  be  made  in  the 
installations,  including  fixtures  and  rolling  stock, 
and  in  the  time  tables,  tariffs  and  conditions  of 
transport,  as  well  as  in  the  organization  of  the 
service.1 

A  superficial  examination  of  the  project  permits 
us  to  say  that  if  it  realizes  financial  autonomy  (it 
has  merely  copied  the  Swiss  organization),  it 
offers  a  mere  appearance  of  administrative  au- 
tonomy. It  maintains  all  the  centralization  which 
is  the  dominant  vice  of  the  present  system ;  far 
from  tending  to  the  suppression  of  political  inter- 
ference, it  re-enforces  it.  All  the  decisions,  all 
the  appointments  which  today  belong  to  the 
minister  are  assigned,  it  is  true,  to  the  Council  of 
Administration,  but  all  the  members  of  this  are 
named    by    the    minister.      The    political    party, 


1  See  text  of  the  project  in  the  Bulletin  du  Comite"  central 
industriel,  January,  1914. 


180  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

which  corrupts  the  present  organization,  will 
function  with  more  intensity  and  cynicism,  since 
the  administrators,  agents  of  the  minister,  will 
no  longer  have  to  answer  for  their  acts  before 
the  Chamber. 

So  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  after  the  war,  while 
resisting  the  attempts  of  those  who  will  propose 
to  turn  over  our  railways  to  private  capitalists, 
Belgium  will  find  a  way  to  assure  to  them  an 
administrative  autonomy  which  will  not  invite 
such  criticisms.  That  will  be  one  of  the  most 
important  tasks  of  our  national  reconstruction. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  AUTONOMY   OF   THE   WORKING   FORCE 

The  third  question  which  arises,  when  the 
State,  making  itself  a  manufacturer,  employs  a 
considerable  working  force,  is  to  know  whether, 
from  the  point  of  view  of  freedom  of  association, 
and  especially  freedom  to  join  unions,  these 
laborers  are  to  be  treated  like  their  comrades  in 
private  industry,  or  are,  on  the  contrary,  to  be 
excluded  from  the  common  law  and  undergo,  by 
reason  of  their  position  as  State  agents,  various 
restrictions  upon  the  ordinary  liberties  of  citizens. 

Almost  everywhere,  if  not  everywhere,  at  the 
start,  the  governments  have  decided  this  question 
in  the  restrictive  sense.  They  have  refused  to 
make  any  distinction  between  the  State,  organ  of 
authority,  and  the  State,  organ  of  management. 
They  have  been  unwilling  to  see  in  the  workers 
of  their  industrial  or  technical  services,  like  the 
posts,  telegraphs  and  railways,  anything  but 
officials  like  other  officials,  making  up  part  of  a 
hierarchic  organization,  and  unable  to  form 
unions  without  subjecting  themselves  to  the 
penal  laws  which  punish  combinations  of  officials. 

181 


182  SOCIALISM   VERSUS  THE  STATE 

Thus,  in  the  French  Chamber,  on  November 

17,  1891,  M.  Jules  Roche,  Minister  of  Commerce, 

said: 

I  do  not  at  all  recognize  the  right  of  government 
workers  to  organize  under  the  trade  union  law,  because 
this  law  does  not  apply  to  them,  since  if  they  formed 
themselves  into  a  union,  it  would  be  against  the  national 
representation  itself  that  they  would  be  organizing. 
The  trade  union  law  has  given  laborers  this  liberty, 
because,  two  private  interests  confronting  each  other, 
that  of  the  employers  on  one  side,  and  that  of  the 
laborers,  on  the  other  side,  it  was  necessary  to  assign 
to  all  interests  the  right  to  use  their  natural  liberty  to 
further  their  own  interests. 

The  employees  of  the  State,  for  their  part,  do  not 
confront  a  private  interest,  but  the  general  interest,  the 
highest  of  all:  the  interest  of  the  State  itself,  repre- 
sented by  the  public  powers,  by  the  Chamber  and  by  the 
Government;  consequently  if  they  could  take  advantage 
of  the  trade  union  law,  it  would  be  against  the  nation 
itself,  against  the  general  interest  of  the  country,  against 
the  national  sovereignty  that  they  would  be  organizing 
their  struggle.1 

Such  an  argument,  however,  took  too  little 
account  of  realities  to  have  any  chance  to  resist 
for  long  the  efforts  of  the  State  laborers  to  win 
freedom  of  association  and  freedom  to  form 
unions. 

It  was  indeed  possible  by  virtue  of  the  common 
law  to  prevent  combinations  of  the  officials  of 
the  Government-State ;  but  to  forbid  laborers  in 


1  Barthou,    L' Action    syndicate,    p.    137.      Paris,    Rousseau, 
1904. 


THE  AUTONOMY  OF  THE  WORKING  FORCE     183 

tobacco  or  match  factories,  metal-workers  in  the 
arsenals,  or  even  postmen  and  telegraphers  to 
form  unions,  was  to  create  a  formidable  argument 
against  any  extension,  even  when  necessary,  of 
the  economic  functions  of  the  State  ;  since  on  that 
hypothesis,  every  passage  from  private  exploita- 
tion to  State  exploitation  would  have  had  for  its 
consequence  a  diminution  of  the  liberties  and  the 
fundamental  rights  of  the  working  class. 

So  we  soon  saw,  under  the  pressure  of  those 
interested,  who  demanded  energetically  the  same 
rights  for  all  laborers,  public  or  private,  the 
application  by  jurists  to  this  new  phenomenon  of 
the  classic  distinction  between  acts  of  authority, 
of  public  power,  and  acts  of  management. 

"These  last,"  said  M.  Laferriere,  "are  those 
which  the  Administration  accomplishes  in  its 
character  of  manager  and  steward  of  public 
services,  and  not  as  depositary  of  a  portion  of 
sovereignty."  1 

Now,  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  right  of 
association,  of  liberty  to  form  unions,  it  seems 
logical  to  treat  in  two  different  ways  the  agents 
of  authority,  holding  a  portion  of  the  public 
power,  and  agents  of  management,  having  no 
participation  in  the  public  power: 


JCf.  Paul  Errera,  Traite  de  Droit  public  Beige,  1909,  p. 
318  et  seq. 


184  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

If  it  is  a  question  of  the  agents  of  authority,  says 
M.  Maurice  Bourguin,  the  relations  existing  between 
them  and  the  State  are  not  contractual  relations,  they 
are  relations  of  sovereignty.  It  is  impossible,  conse- 
quently, to  recognize  in  the  agents  of  authority  the  same 
rights  as  in  other  citizens,  notably  the  right  to  form 
trade  unions ;  a  union  formed  among  agents  of  the 
public  powers,  capable  of  checking  or  suspending  the 
exercise  of  sovereignty,  would  be  incompatible  with  the 
principles  of  public  justice.  .  .  .  If  it  is  a  question 
of  agents  of  management  having  no  participation  in  the 
public  powers,  they  find  themselves  bound  to  the  State 
by  a  veritable  contract  for  the  hiring  of  services.  Their 
relations  with  the  State  appear  to  me  to  be  of  the  same 
nature  as  those  of  a  laborer  or  an  ordinary  employee 
with  his  employer,  and  I  perceive  no  precise  reason  in 
the  texts  and  general  principles  of  law  for  refusing 
them  the  ordinary  right  of  citizens,  the  right  to  defend 
their  interests,  face  to  face  with  their  employer,  the 
State,  by  means  of  trade  unions.1 

This  distinction,  moreover,  is  today  admitted 
by  every  one,  implicitly  or  explicitly.  In  the  very 
countries,  like  Belgium,  where  freedom  of  asso- 
ciation is  still  subjected  to  restrictions  that  we 
regard  as  unjustifiable,  the  Government  recog- 
nizes that  these  restrictions  "should  be  more  or 
less  extensive  according  to  the  services  in  ques- 
tion," and  that  "all  State  employees  are  not  offi- 
cials in  the  restricted  sense  of  the  term."  2 

But  difficulties  arise  when  it  comes  to  marking 


1  Bourguin,  De  l'Appication  des  Lois  ouvrieres  aux  ouvriers 
et  employes  de  l'Etat.  Conferences  faites  an  mois  de  juin 
1012,  a  l'Ecole  professionelle  superieure  des  Postes  et 
T61>5ffraphes. 

'  See  Expose1  des  motifs  du  projet  de  loi  sur  la  liberty 
dissociation  des  C.  P.  T.  T.,  14  mar  1910. 


THE  AUTONOMY  OF  THE  WORKING  FORCE    185 

the  precise  point  at  which  appointment  to  public 
office  begins  and  contract  for  the  hire  of  services 
ends.  As  M.  Fontaine  points  out,3  there  are  be- 
tween the  public  administrations  and  the  clearly 
industrial  operations  of  the  State,  certain  serv- 
ices the  character  of  which  is  contestable.  Every- 
one will  agree  that  generals,  magistrates  and 
prefects  are  officials,  that  workers  in  distilleries 
or  in  match  or  tobacco  factories  operated  by 
the  State  are  not,  but  one  need  only  refer  to 
the  ministerial  bulletins  or  the  records  of 
French  jurisprudence  to  become  convinced  that 
the  intermediate  cases — such  for  example  as 
employees  of  the  revenue  department,  road- 
workers,  postal  clerks  or  carriers — are  ex- 
tremely numerous. 

On  the  other  hand,  even  if  it  be  admitted  that 
industrial  workers  employed  by  the  State  ought 
to  enjoy,  as  regards  the  right  of  association,  a 
greater  liberty  than  officials  properly  so  called,  it 
does  not  necessarily  follow  that  they  should  be 
accorded  the  same  rights  as  the  laborers  of  pri- 
vate industry;  the  Administration,  for  example, 
may  under  certain  conditions  require  that  permis- 
sion be  first  obtained  before  organizing  into 
unions,  or  may  refuse  the  right  to  strike,  or  even 
go  so  far  as  to  make  striking  a  crime. 


3  Louage  du  travail,  Nos.  136  to  170. 


186  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

This  question  of  the  right  of  association  for 
State  workers  is  therefore  a  delicate  and  complex 
one.  General  formulas  may  aid  in  solving  it. 
They  do  not  relieve  us  from  examining,  for  each 
category  of  State  employees,  the  applications  that 
must  be  made  of  the  basic  principle  of  the  separa- 
tion of  the  governmental  State  from  the  indus- 
trial State,  or,  to  use  Saint-Simon's  phrase,  the 
government  of  men  from  the  administration  of 
things.  But  among  these  categories,  there  is  one 
which,  in  all  countries,  attracts  particular  atten- 
tion, through  the  number  of  workers  belonging 
in  it,  and  through  the  gravity  of  the  consequences 
which  may  result  for  the  whole  nation  from  the 
exercise  of  freedom  to  form  unions:  that  is  the 
category  of  communications  and  transportation 
(telegraphers,  telephone  operators,  postmen  and 
railroad  workers). 

In  Belgium  for  example,  it  is  with  reference  to 
these  workers  exclusively  that  the  Government 
thought  it  necessary  to  draft  a  law,  and  while 
awaiting  the  vote  on  it,  to  adopt  special  regulative 
measures. 

We  have  published  elsewhere  an  account  of  a 
criticism  of  these  measures.1  We  will  confine 
ourselves  here  to  a  few  general  observations. 


1  E.  Vandervelde,  La  Liberte  syndicate  et  la  personnel  de 
l'Etat  en   Belgique.     Gand,   Volksdrukkerij,   1913. 


the  autonomy  of  the  working  force  187 

1.     Belgium 

When  in  1881  the  employees  of  the  railroads, 
posts  and  telegraphs  attempted  for  the  first  time 
to  create  a  federation  having  for  its  aim  the  im- 
provement of  their  condition  and  the  defense  of 
their  common  interests,  the  Liberal  minister 
Sainctelette  formally  forbade  them  to  associate 
themselves.  He  based  this  prohibition  on  the 
fact  that  "collective  demands  are  prohibited  as 
incompatible  with  administrative  discipline.  It 
is  inadmissible,  moreover,  for  agents  of  the  State 
to  organize  an  instrument  of  pressure  upon  the 
Government  and  the  Chambers." 

Later,  in  1891  and  1892,  new  attempts  having 
developed,  the  minister  Vanden  Peereboom  re- 
newed the  former  prohibitions. 

It  required  more  than  fifteen  years  before  the 
governmental  ideas,  under  pressure  from  the 
Parliament,  were  modified  to  a  certain  extent. 
On  February  5,  1908,  on  a  question  raised  by  the 
Socialist  deputy  Anseele,  the  Chamber  adopted 
a  resolution  refusing  State  employees  the  right  to 
strike,  but  proclaiming  that  they  "have  the  right 
to  associate  themselves  freely  to  the  greatest 
extent  compatible  with  order  and  discipline." 

As  a  result  of  this  vote,  the  Government 
proposed  a  law  according,  but  with  many  re- 
strictions, a  legal  status  to  the  unions  of  State 


188  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

employees,  and,  as  a  temporary  measure,  the 
Minister  of  Railroads,  Posts  and  Telegraphs 
issued  an  order  (March  9,  1910)  on  the  right 
of  association  of  its  employees. 

This  order,  moreover,  sanctions  the  principle 
of  the  right  of  association,  but  only  with  restric- 
tions and  prohibitions  which  deprive  it  of  almost 
every  possible  application. 

The  employees  may  associate  themselves,  but 
they  must  refrain  from  all  political  action,  from 
any  attack  on  acts  or  decisions  of  the  Administra- 
tion, from  any  measure  of  such  nature  as  to 
obstruct  the  enforcement  of  orders,  and  from  any 
demonstration  with  a  view  to  obtain,  in  favor  of 
administrative  reforms,  the  support  of  persons 
outside  the  Administration.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  Government  claims  the  right  to  impose  upon 
the  trade  unions  the  obligation  to  split  themselves 
up  into  as  many  groups  as  there  are  distinct 
specialties  in  a  category  of  employees.  For 
example,  the  local  and  rural  carriers,  the  carriers 
on  probation,  and  the  postal  clerks  must  form 
three  distinct  associations.  Moreover,  the  asso- 
ciations must  not  federate.  Finally,  the  em- 
ployees must  not  attend,  even  as  simple  auditors, 
at  political  meetings  organized  by  outsiders,  to 
discuss  the  administrative  situation  of  the  State 
employees. 


THE  AUTONOMY  OF  THE  WORKING  FORCE    189 

Is  it  surprising  that,  under  these  conditions> 
the  railway  and  postal  employees  are  not  satis- 
fied? They  continue  their  effort  to  obtain  real 
freedom  to  form  unions,  and  they  invoke  in  sup- 
port of  their  argument  the  example  of  most  of 
the  countries  of  western  Europe.  As  special 
examples  we  cite  France  and  England. 

2.    France 

In  France,  as  elsewhere,  the  Government  re- 
fused, for  a  long  time,  to  agree  that  freedom  of 
association  be  granted  to  State  employees,  even 
to  those  exercising  no  authority.  It  was  not  until 
May  22,  1894,  that,  contrary  to  the  advice  of  the 
minister  Casimir-Perier,  who  resigned,  the  Cham- 
ber adopted  the  following  resolution: 

"Whereas,  the  law  of  1884  on  trade  unions 
applies  to  workmen  and  employees  of  State  in- 
dustries, as  well  as  to  those  in  private  industry, 
the  Government  is  requested  to  respect  it  and  to 
facilitate  its  operation." 

The  result  of  this  resolution  is  that  the  laborers 
and  employees  of  the  industrial  and  commercial 
enterprises  of  the  State,  the  departments  and  the 
municipalities  have  freedom  to  organize  unions. 

But,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Administration 
and  the  courts  have  made  rulings  and  rendered 
decisions  that  are  exceedingly  variable  on  the 


190  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

point  of  determining  which  are  the  State  em- 
ployees that  ought  to  be  regarded  as  workers  in 
industrial  and  commercial  enterprises,  and  not 
as  officials  excluded  from  the  benefits  of  the  law 
of  1884. 

Regarding  particularly  the  employees  of  the 
Department  of  Public  Works,  the  following  note 
from  M.  Fontaine,  manager  of  the  Labor  Office, 
defines  the  situation  which  has  resulted  for  the 
different  categories  of  workers: 

The  railway  workers  are  organized  in  trade  unions, 
which  have  always  figured  in  the  successive  editions  of 
the  "Year  Book  of  Unions,"  published  by  the  Minister 
of  Labor :  first,  General  Association  of  State  Railway 
Workers,  founded  in  1899,  indicated  in  the  edition  of 
1910-1911  as  enrolling  3,225  members  and  publishing  a 
monthly  journal;  second,  Federation  of  Mechanics, 
Motormen  and  Conductors  of  the  State  Electric  (rail- 
ways), dating  from  1906  and  enrolling  3,370  members. 

The  French  State  seems  to  have  made  no  opposition 
to  the  organization  of  these  unions. 

As  regards  the  postal  and  telegraph  workers,  the 
question  is  altogether  different.  The  French  Govern- 
ment has  admitted  the  legality  of  unions  of  laborers, 
but  has  contested  that  of  the  unions  of  employees  or 
clerks. 

In  the  "Year  Book  of  Unions"  appear  the  Union  of 
Postal,  Telegraph  and  Telephone  Workers,  established 
in  1899,  enrolling  5,750  members,  and  the  Manual 
Laborers'  Union  of  Posts,  Telegraph  and  Telephones, 
established  in  1905,  enrolling  1,825  members. 

On  the  contrary,  the  National  Union  of  Postal,  Tele- 
graph and  Telephone  Employees  does  not  figure  in  this 
annual,   its  dissolution   for  illegality  having  been  pro- 


THE  AUTONOMY  OF  THE  WORKING  FORCE    191 

nounced   July   29,    1906,    by   the    Correctional    Tribunal 
of  the  Seine. 

But  the  French  Government  has  never  refused  to  the 
postal  employees,  as  to  all  other  employees  in  its  service, 
the  right  to  form  associations  governed,  not  by  the 
trade  union  law,  but  by  the  law  for  incorporating 
associations.  The  General  Association  of  Postal  Em- 
ployees, thus  constituted,  has  been  allowed  to  present  to 
the  Administration  the  grievances  of  the  employees,  just 
as  the  laborers'  union  presented  the  demands  of  the 
laborers. 

There  are  thus  in  France  two  distinct  systems, 

that  of  the  railway  workers  and  laborers  in  the 

postal  service,  who  have  the  right  to  form  trade 

unions,  and  that  of  the  clerks  and  carriers,  who 

have  not  that  right,  but  who  enjoy,  to  the  fullest 

extent,  the  right  of  association  established  by  the 

common  law,  under  the  statute  of  1901. 

3.     England 

The  question  does  not  arise  in  England,  where 
the  railroads  are  operated  by  private  capitalists, 
except  in  the  case  of  postal  employees.  It  has 
been  decided,  for  the  last  six  years,  on  the  lines 
of  the  most  complete  freedom  of  association. 
The  State  employees  not  only  have  the  right  to 
organize  as  they  see  fit  for  the  defense  of  their 
common  interests,  but  their  Trade  Unions  may, 
if  they  wish,  take  part  in  political  action :  several 
of  them  are  on  the  list  of  the  societies  affiliated 
with  the  Labour  Party.     On  the  other  hand  the 


192  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

societies  of  this  kind  attached  to  the  Postoffice 
have,  since  1906,  been  officially  recognized  by  the 
Government. 

From  a  circular  of  the  Postmaster  General 
dated  April  14,  1910,  (Official  Recognition  of 
Postoffice  Servants'  Trade-Union),  we  quote  as 
follows : 

The  circular  of  the  Postoffice,  dated  February  13,  1906, 
announced  that  the  Postmaster  General  was  ready  to 
recognize  any  association  or  federation  of  postoffice 
servants  duly  constituted,  and  that  he  was  prepared  to 
receive  representatives  of  the  members  or  delegates  of 
these  associations,  or  of  their  secretary  (in  the  service 
or  otherwise)  upon  all  matters  relative  either  to  the 
general  administration,  or  to  the  interests  of  the  various 
classes  represented  by  the  association.  This  recognition 
was  admitted  by  Mr.  Buxton  solely  as  an  experiment. 

The  Postmaster  General  is  happy  to  state  that  the 
experiment  of  the  four  years  just  past  justifies  the 
extension  of  the  limits  within  which  any  recognized 
association  should  be  allowed  to  send  representatives. 

Desiring  to  learn  whether  the  satisfaction  of 
the  Postmaster  General  was  shared  by  the  em- 
ployees under  him,  we  addressed  an  inquiry  to 
the  secretary  of  the  Postmen's  Federation,  Mr. 
Stuart,  who  answered  as  follows : 

"1.  Are  the  Postmen  allowed  to  organize 
freely?" 

"Yes,  entirely  so.  This  right  was  legally 
recognized  many  years  ago,  but  has  been  prac- 
tically conceded  to  them  only  since  1890.    Unions 


THE  AUTONOMY  OF  THE  WORKING  FORCE    193 

had  already  been  organized  before  that  time,  but 
their  formation  had  been  severely  discouraged 
and  their  leaders  often  victimized.  In  1890,  the 
Postmaster  General,  the  late  Cecil  Raikes,  de- 
clared: 'There  is  no  regulation  forbidding  the 
postmen  to  organize  for  the  defense  of  their 
interests  and  the  redress  of  their  grievances.'  A 
little  later  the  regulations  requiring  that  the  au- 
thorities be  notified  of  the  meetings  of  postmen, 
and  permitting  the  Postmaster  General  to  be 
represented  at  them,  were  abolished.  Since  then, 
no  attempt  has  been  made  to  interfere  with  our 
rights.  In  1893,  however,  two  postmen  were 
dismissed  under  pretext  of  breach  of  discipline, 
but  really  on  account  of  their  union  activity.  But 
these  are  the  only  cases  that  have  occurred  since 
1890,  and  we  have  no  reason  to  think  that  future 
incidents  of  this  kind  are  to  be  apprehended." 

"2.  Do  the  postmen's  unions  benefit  from 
common-law  legislation  ?" 

"Practically,  the  answer  is  affirmative.  Legally, 
the  question  is  doubtful.  The  law  is  not  definitely 
fixed  on  the  point.  In  fact,  the  postmen's  asso- 
ciations have  all  the  privileges  of  ordinary  unions, 
and  one  or  two  advantages  that  these  do  not 
possess.  Thus,  for  example,  the  postal  unions  do 
not  come  under  the  so-called  Osborne  decision, 


194  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

forbidding  unions  to  appropriate  funds  for  their 
parliamentary  representation." 

"3.  Can  the  postmen  go  on  strike  as  freely  as 
the  miners?" 

"Legally,  there  is  no  difference.  There  have 
been,  moreover,  one  or  two  partial  strikes  of  little 
importance  in  the  Postoffice.  But  a  general  strike 
'is  improbable,  in  view  of  the  facility  with  which 
•the  leaders  of  the  associations  can  approach  the 
Postmaster  General  and  the  other  authorities  of 
the  Postoffice." 

4.     Summary  and  Conclusions 

There  is  evidently  a  world-wide  difference  be- 
tween the  freedom  of  association  recognized  for 
State  employees  in  England  and  even  in  France 
■ — or  in  Switzerland,  Holland  and  the  Scandi- 
navian countries — and  the  restrictive  system  of 
liberty  to  unionize  which  still  exists  in  Belgium. 
The  Belgian  Government  certainly  recognizes  in 
principle  the  legitimacy  and  usefulness  of  the 
trade  unions  of  the  C.  P.  T.  T.,  but  it  claims 
to  reserve  to  itself  the  right  to  limit  their  field  of 
action  and  their  recruiting  field,  to  divide  them 
into  as  many  groups  as  there  are  categories  and 
distinct  specialties  among  the  C.  P.  T.  T.,  to 
prevent  the  federation  of  the  groups  thus  split 
up,  and  to  restrain  their  activity  to  the  mere  de- 


THE  AUTONOMY  OF  THE  WORKING  FORCE    195 

fense  of  their  trade  interests  in  the  strictest  sense. 

To  justify  these  derogations  of  the  common 
law,  it  is  said  that  if  the  so-called  trade  unions 
of  State  employees  came  to  include  the  most  di- 
verse categories  of  workers  or  even  all  the  work- 
ers connected  with  an  administration  of  the  State, 
such  a  general  association  would  no  longer  be  a 
trade  union,  since  all  the  trades,  all  the  positions, 
would  be  confounded  in  it:  "It  would  be  noth- 
ing more  than  a  mob  of  the  persons  employed 
by  the  administration,  assembled  with  a  view  to 
exercising  by  their  numbers  a  pressure  on  the 
members  of  Parliament  and  on  the  administra- 
tive authority." 

No  one  will  deny  this.  But  it  is  absurd  to 
suppose  that  on  the  day  when  State  employees 
come  to  enjoy  the  liberty  to  organize  on  the  same 
terms  as  the  laborers  in  private  industry,  they 
would  make  a  use  of  that  liberty  which  would 
be  the  very  negation  of  it.  Is  it  not  plain,  in  fact, 
that  if  the  letter  carriers,  the  telegraphers,  the 
telephone  workers  and  the  railway  workers,  for 
example,  were  merged  in  the  same  association, 
they  would  put  themselves,  by  that  fact,  into  a 
position  where  they  would  find  it  absolutely 
impossible  to  defend  their  own  professional 
interests?  As  M.  Paul-Boncour,  former  Min- 
ister of  Labor,  observed  very  justly :  "The  closest 


196  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

solidarity  is  that  uniting  those  who  work  at  the 
same  trade :  that  is  expressed  by  the  union ;  what 
interests  us  most  is  to  protect  the  labor  which 
assure  life  to  us:  It  is  the  union  that  permits 
this." 

Nothing  then  leads  us  to  expect  that,  if  the 
State  workers  were  free,  they  would  mix  into  one 
single  association.  What  is  true  is  that  they 
would  put  an  end  to  the  system  of  crumbling  into 
indefinitely  small  fractions  which  the  Administra- 
tion imposes  on  them  today  to  make  them  power- 
less. The  postmen,  for  example,  would  reconsti- 
tute their  united  organization.  The  laborers  on 
the  roads  and  public  works  would  perhaps  form 
a  single  association.  And  without  doubt  the 
various  trade  unions  of  the  C.  P.  T.  T.,  or  the 
railroads,  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  the  P.  T.  T. 
on  the  other,  would  join,  for  the  defense  of  their 
common  interests,  into  a  single  federation. 

But  that  is  precisely  what  the  Belgian  govern- 
ment fears.  The  "syndicalism  of  functionaries" 
inspires  it  with  a  profound  distrust.  This  is 
nothing  less  than  an  attempt  at  substituting  trade 
associations  for  the  Administration  itself: 

They  would  no  longer  be  associations  composed  of 
workers  for  the  Administration ;  they  would  be  fractions 
of  the  Administration.  Their  sum-total  would  consti- 
tute the  Administration  itself.  They  would  be  "auton- 
omous."    This  program  might  not  be  realized  imme- 


THE  AUTONOMY  OF  THE  WORKING  FORCE    197 

diately,  but  its  partisans  hope  to  realize  it  with  the 
briefest  delay  possible.  These  ideas  do  not  exist,  in 
general,  among  our  workers,  except  in  a  confused  state. 
Still  it  is  necessary  to  point  them  out,  for  they  have 
been  manifested,  on  certain  occasions,  by  an  interfer- 
ence, direct  although  unreflecting,  of  certain  associations 
with  the  proper  attributes  of  the  Administration. 

In  other  countries,  the  syndicalism  of  functionaries 
constitutes  a  veritable  doctrine  which  tends  to  "dis- 
establish" the  State,  to  give  the  postoffice  department  to 
the  postmen,  telegraphy  to  the  telegraphers,  the  navy  to 
the  sailors,  the  railroads  to  the  railroad  men.  The 
public  services  would  be  treated  like  private  industries, 
or  the  trade  would  be  organized  for  the  profit  of  those 
who  work  at  it. 

The  functionaries,  recruiting  their  numbers  at  their 
own  discretion,  without  the  intervention  of  any  authority, 
would  operate  at  their  own  pleasure  the  administrative 
services,  which  would  become  the  administrations  of  the 
persons  interested. 

The  Government  would  fail  in  all  its  duties  if  it  did 
not  combat  such  doctrines.  If  one  can  imagine  a  system 
where  the  laborers  would  be  proprietors  of  the  factory 
— and  all  those  who  have  tried  to  start  co-operatives  of 
production  know  what  enormous  difficulties  stand  in  the 
way  of  applying  this  very  seductive  idea — it  is  contrary 
to  every  conception  of  the  State  to  turn  over  the  Admin- 
istration to  the  functionary,  for  here  the  function  is  not 
created  for  the  greatest  profit  of  him  who  exercises  it, 
but  solely  for  the  service  of  the  nation,  in  the  general 
interest. 

The  syndicalism  of  functionaries,  as  certain  persons 
understand  it,  reverses  this  conception,  the  only  ad- 
missible one,  of  the  public  function;  no  one  can  admit 
it  without  desiring  the  ruin  of  the  country.1 


1  Projet  de  loi  No.  121,  p.  8. 


198  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

As  to  this  we  have  to  say  that  if  what  is  called 
the  "syndicalism  of  functionaries,"  although  it  is 
really  a  question  of  the  syndicalism  of  workers 
who  are  not  functionaries,  had  such  aims  and 
tended  to  such  consequences,  the  socialists  would 
not  be  the  last  to  oppose  it.  We  do  not  desire 
the  railroad  for  the  railroad  men  or  the  postoffice 
for  the  postmen,  any  more  than  the  mine  for  the 
miners  or  weaving  for  the  weavers.  To  use  a 
phrase  of  M.  Briand,  we  admit  that  the  public 
domain  and  machinery  are  "instituted  for  the 
benefit  of  all,  and  not  for  the  special  use  of  those 
to  whom  they  are  entrusted."1 

Also  there  should  be  no  question  of  allowing 
the  State  workers  to  "operate  at  their  own  pleas- 
ure" the  railroads,  the  posts,  the  telegraphs  or 
the  telephones.  They  should  have,  in  our  opinion, 
the  right  to  organize  freely  for  the  defense  of 
their  common  interests,  but  we  do  not  propose  to 
sacrifice  the  general  interests  to  these  special 
interests,  and  we  repeat  emphatically  that  the 
manager  of  a  national  industry,  if  he  found  him- 
self confronted  with  excessive  demands,  would 
have  not  only  the  right  but  the  duty  to  oppose 


1  Chamber  of  Deputies,  session  of  1910,  No.  126.     Bill  on 
the  status  of  railway  employees,  p.  5, 


THE  AUTONOMY  OF  THE  WORKING  FORCE    199 

them  energetically  in  the  name  of  that  general 
interest.2 

In  short,  the  type  toward  which,  in  our  view, 
the  organization  of  the  socialized  industries 
should  evolve,  is  not  the  "co-operative  of  produc- 
tion," whose  members,  being  associated  only  with 
each  other,  are  associated  against  every  one  else, 
but  the  co-operative  of  consumption,  in  which  the 
final  decision  belongs  not  to  the  employees  but 
to  the  general  assembly  of  the  co-operators. 

In  the  great  co-operative  which  the  railway 
system  is,  or  ought  to  be,  for  example,  all  the 
citizens,  consumers  of  transportation,  are  repre- 
sented by  the  manager  of  the  system,  and  he  must 
direct  the  enterprise,  with  the  collaboration  of  the 
workers,  just  as  in  our  socialist  co-operatives  the 
manager  elected  by  the  general  assembly,  and 
holding  his  powers  of  management  from  it, 
directs  the  enterprise  with  the  collaboration  of 
the  working  force  of  laborers  and  employees. 
But  if,  in  either  case,  the  directing  power  must 
come  from  the  consumers,  from  the  collectivity, 
then  the  collectivity  or  the  consumers,  of  whom 
the  working  force  constitute  a  part,  ought  to  be 
model  employers,  and  the  first  example  which 


2  Understand  that  we  are  here  working  on  the  hypothesis 
of  a  democratic  State,  in  which  the  rights  of  the  workers  in 
national  industries  would  be  fully  protected,  without  at- 
tempting for  the  moment  to  forecast  what  might  be  a  socialist 
system  of  collective  labor. 


200  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

this  collective  employer  should  give  to  other 
employers,  is  to  recognize  the  full  and  complete 
liberty  of  those  whom  it  employs  to  associate 
themselves  for  the  defense  of  their  common 
interests. 

True,  the  further  objection  is  urged,  that  the 
industry  of  the  railroads — or  of  the  posts,  tele- 
graphs or  telephones — is  not  a  mere  industry 
like  the  others,  but  is  a  "public  service,"  the 
interruption  of  which  has  the  most  serious 
consequences  for  the  community,  and  that  for 
this  reason,  nothing  could  be  more  dangerous 
than  to  recognize  for  the  workers  employed  in 
these  branches  of  industry  the  "right  to  organ- 
ize," because  the  right  to  organize  had  for  its 
logical  complement  the  "right  to  strike."  It  is 
for  this  reason  that  in  1898,  in  the  Belgian  Cham- 
ber, M.  Bergerem,  Minister  of  Justice,  refused 
to  grant  legal  recognition  to  such  trade  unions  as 
might  be  organized  among  workers  in  public 
industries:  in  his  view,  the  trade  union  was  un- 
thinkable without  the  right  to  strike;  now,  con- 
siderations of  principle  and  of  public  interest  are, 
he  held,  are  opposed  to  the  recognition  of  such  a 
right  for  State  employees. 

This  argument,  moreover,  is  not  admitted  by 
the  present  Government.  In  the  discussions  of 
its  proposed  laws  relating  to  associations  organ- 


THE  AUTONOMY  OF  THE  WORKING  FORCE    201 

ized  among  the  employees  of  the  C.  P.  T.  T.,  it 

declares  the  contrary : 

The  union,  it  says,  has  been  regarded  too  exclusively 
as  a  school  for  strikes.  It  is  true  that  the  strike  can 
not  be  made  effective  without  an  organization  of  the 
laborers,  but  the  latter  may  exist  without  producing  the 
former,  and  the  trade  union  may,  to  the  great  profit  of 
the  laborers,  devote  itself  to  a  different  mission  from 
that  of  preparing  for  or  provoking  conflict. 

It  is  however  beyond  doubt  that,  if  the  Belgian 
government  refuses  to  its  employees  the  freedom 
to  organize,  if  it  imposes  on  their  trade  unions 
the  system  of  preliminary  permission,  if  it  takes 
in  their  case  all  sorts  of  precautions  of  which 
the  effect,  if  not  the  intention,  is  to  obstruct  their 
normal  development,  it  is  largely  because  it  fears 
that  strong  associations  would  be  tempted  to  re- 
sort some  day  to  the  strike,  for  securing  the 
triumph  of  their  demands. 

Moreover,  we  should  not  be  expressing  our 
whole  thought  if  we  did  not  admit  that,  in  fact, 
freedom  to  organize  has  as  its  corollary  the  right 
to  resort  to  the  strike.  So  we  should  oppose  with 
all  our  strength  any  laws  of  exception  which 
might  tend,  as  regards  the  workers  in  socialized 
industries,  to  erect  the  fact  of  striking  into  a 
crime. 

But  does  it  follow  that  under  the  present 
system  of  common  law,  the  collectivity  finds  itself 


202  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

without  defense  against  State  employees — rail- 
road men  or  postmen  for  example — who  might 
try  to  abuse  the  fact  of  their  being  indispensable 
to  exercise,  by  concerted  cessation  from  work,  an 
unjustifiable  pressure  on  the  government? 

Here  again,  a  comparison  with  the  co-opera- 
tives will  help  make  our  meaning  clear.  It  may 
happen  and  it  does  happen  that  conflicts  arise 
between  the  managers  of  a  co-operative — even' 
socialist — and  the  members  of  the  working  force. 
These  conflicts,  indeed,  are  relatively  rare.  At- 
tempts are  made  on  both  sides  to  prevent  them, 
or  if  they  break  out,  to  settle  them,  in  a  spirit  of 
broad  conciliation.  But  if  they  persist,  what  is 
the  situation?  The  employees,  who  generally 
belong  to  the  union  of  their  trade,  go  on  strike. 
That  is  their  unquestioned  right.  Only,  the  man- 
agers of  the  co-operative,  backed  by  their  general 
assembly,  have  the  right  to  fill  the  places  of  the 
strikers,  and  naturally  this  means  of  defense  is 
more  effective  in  proportion  as  the  conditions  of 
employment  are  more  favorable  to  the  workers. 

Now,  what  happens  at  present  in  our  co- 
operatives is  an  image  of  what  happens,  or  would 
happen,  in  a  democratic  State,  remember  we  are 
not  saying  in  a  Socialist  State,  in  which  the  work- 
ers in  socialized  industries  would  fully  enjoy  the 
right  of  association  and  of  combination.     They 


THE  AUTONOMY  OF  THE  WORKING  FORCE    203 

would,  it  is  true,  constitute  a  veritable  power. 
They  would  be  in  a  position  to  obtain,  through 
the  organization  of  labor,  all  reforms  compatible 
with  good  service  and  with  the  resources  of  the 
community.  They  would  cease  to  be  as  today  the 
servants  of  an  authoritarian  and  despotic  bu- 
reaucracy. But  if  they  yielded  to  the  temptation 
to  abuse  their  strength,  if  after  doing  everything 
to  make  the  resort  to  a  strike  useless  and  unjusti- 
fiable— by  assuring  its  workers  a  legal  status, 
representation,  an  effective  share  in  the  manage- 
ment— if  the  collectivity  were  obliged  by  them 
to  defend  itself,  nothing  would  be  more  legiti- 
mate, and  at  the  same  time  more  effective  than 
to  use  against  the  strikers  the  right  belonging  to 
the  head  of  every  enterprise :  the  right  to  employ 
them  no  longer. 

It  would  in  fact  be  necessary  to  adopt  syste- 
matically the  one-sidedness  of  certain  syndicalists, 
and  be  totally  incapable  of  comprehending  the 
viewpoint  of  those  "on  the  other  side  of  the 
fence,"  not  to  recognize  that  at  a  given  moment 
the  responsible  head  of  a  public  service,  having 
to  defend  the  general  interests  of  the  community, 
might  stand  disarmed  before  a  strike  of  his  em- 
ployees. But,  as  M.  Millerand  points  out,  in  his 
report  on  Briand's  proposed  law  against  the  right 
to  strike  for  workers  in  public  services,  it  is  not 


204  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

necessary  for  that  reason  to  attack  the  right  to 

organize,  nor  to  make  striking  a  crime. 

Whatever  may  be,  moreover,  the  penalties  that 
may  be  imagined,  ...  it  is  self-evident  that 
these  penalties  are  always  less  serious  than  the  civil 
remedy  with  which  the  strikers  may  be  punished, 
namely  dismissal.  The  administration  of  a  railway 
system,  obliged  to  assure  service  to  the  public,  re- 
sponsible morally  and  financially  for  the  manage- 
ment, has,  it  scarcely  need  be  said,  the  formal  right 
to  dismiss  any  workers  who  have  voluntarily  left 
their  jobs.  It  may  be  merciful,  when  the  hour 
arrives  to  forget,  but  if  the  workers  propose  justly 
to  preserve  their  liberty  of  action,  it  can  be  only 
on  condition  of  assuming  responsibility  for  what 
they  do. 

We  certainly  should  not  agree  with  M.  Mil- 
lerand  when  he  regards  the  State's  use  of  its 
legitimate  defense  against  excessive  or  extrav- 
agant demands  as  a  punishment,  a  civil  penalty. 
We  keep  his  words  merely  to  show  that  the 
recognition  of  the  right  of  State  workers  to 
strike  does  not  leave  the  State  disarmed  against 
combinations  hostile  to  the  general  interest.  But 
need  we  add,  in  the  conflicts  which  have  arisen 
for  several  years  past,  in  France,  in  Holland,  in 
Italy  and  elsewhere,  it  was  not  the  general  inter- 
est which  caused  them,  but  the  interests  of  the 
ruling  classes,  and  we  should  decidedly  have  been 
on  the  side  of  the  strikers. 


CHAPTER  IV 

SOCIALISM   AND  STATE  INDUSTRIES 

From  the  mass  Of  facts  which  have  been  set 
forth,  the  conclusion  develops  that  the  State- 
employer  is  not  everywhere  the  same  thing,  and 
that,  even  now,  under  the  pressure  of  the  necessi- 
ties of  industrial  management,  the  national  or 
municipal  enterprises  tend,  more  and  more,  to 
differentiate  themselves  from  the  State,  organ  of 
authority. 

There  is  a  wide  interval,  for  example,  between 
the  purely  fiscal  alcohol  monopoly  which  existed 
in  Russia  before  the  suppression  of  vodka,  and 
the  organization,  largely  autonomous,  of  the  fed- 
eral railways  in  Switzerland.  In  both  cases,  cer- 
tainly, we  have  to  do  with  the  capitalist  State, 
employing  and  exploiting  wage-workers ;  but  in 
Switzerland,  as  we  have  seen,  its  management  is 
concerned  above  all  with  the  general  interest ;  in 
Russia,  on  the  contrary,  the  monopoly  had  no 
other  aim  than  to  contribute  for  the  ever  growing 
needs  of  the  army  and  the  navy. 

This  was  explicitly  stated  in  a  speech  delivered 
before  the  Imperial  Council,  in  January,   1914, 

205 


206  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

by    Count    de    Witte,    the    originator    of    that 

institution. 

The  monopoly,  he  declared,  had  been  originally- 
introduced  to  fight  alcoholism;  it  was  intended  to 
give  the  people  a  pure  brandy  and  to  regulate  its 
sale;  at  the  same  time  the  Government  organized 
anti-alcoholic  district  committees,  charged  to  com- 
bat drunkenness  by  propaganda  through  libraries, 
Sunday-schools,  theaters,  etc.  Now  the  monopoly 
serves  for  an  altogether  different  end,  and  its  original 
character  is  perverted;  it  is  a  gigantic  pump,  ad- 
mirably planned,  which  sucks  up  all  the  resources  of 
the  country;  all  the  efforts  of  the  Government  tend 
only  to  increase  the  intake  of  this  pump,  and  the 
vodka  monopoly  furnishes  nearly  half  the  resources 
of  our  budget.  Since  the  war  began,  the  receipts 
of  the  monopoly  have  increased  by  five  hundred 
million  roubles,  and  today  exceed  a  billion  roubles. 
Under  these  conditions,  the  anti-alcoholic  com- 
mittees are  reduced  to  powerlessness,  and  any 
struggle  against  the  abuse  of  alcohol  has  become 
impossible,  since,  from  the  fiscal  point  of  view,  the 
Government  can  only  congratulate  itself  on  the 
increase  of  the  receipts  of  the  monopoly. 

It  goes  without  saying  that,  under  these  con- 
ditions, exploitation  by  the  State  is  an  unmixed 
evil.  Any  one  who  is  a  socialist,  or  even  a  demo- 
crat, must  be  hostile  to  it.  Perhaps,  in  the  old 
empire  of  the  Czars,  we  should  have  considered 
that,  all  in  all,  the  State  railways  presented  more 
advantages  than  disadvantages ;  but  as  for  fiscal 
monopolies,  we  should  certainly  have  agreed  with 
Guesde  in  admitting  that  such  institutions,  far 


SOCIALISM  AND  STATE  INDUSTRIES  207 

from  being  advantageous  to  the  workers,  were  a 
formidable  instrument  for  exploiting  and  op- 
pressing them.  Therefore,  as  he  says  in  his 
pamphlet  on  Public  Services  and  Socialism: 
"rather  than  to  work  for  their  extension,  there  is 
reason  to  attack  those  which  already  exist,  and 
which  constitute  so  many  obstacles  in  the  way  of 
proletarian  organization  and  action." 

But  Guesde,  as  we  have  seen,  goes  further. 
He  generalizes  his  opposition  to  State  industries. 
He  formulates  it  in  absolute  terms.  He  declares 
that,  within  the  structure  of  the  present  society, 
"public  services  present,  for  the  socialist  party 
and  its  objectives,  nothing  but  dangers."  He 
admits  only  one  attitude  for  the  socialists  toward 
enterprises  for  the  statization  of  monopolized 
enterprises : 

"The  revolution  first,  that  is  to  say,  the  political 
and  economic  expropriation  of  the  capitalist 
class ;  public  services  afterwards,  because,  after 
the  fusion  of  the  classes  into  one  only — that  of 
the  producers — really  public  services  will  be 
possible." 

That  is  not,  moreover,  an  isolated  opinion.  To 
read  the  Communist  Manifesto,  it  seems  indeed 
that  Marx  and  Engels  were  equally  of  the  opinion 
that  the  statization  of  certain  industries  was  ad- 


208  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

missible  only  after  the  proletarian  conquest  of 
power. 

Kautsky  likewise,  in  his  little  book  "The  Social 
Revolution,"  without  being  as  clear  as  Guesde  in 
this  regard,  seems  also  to  defer  to  the  morrow  of 
the  revolution  the  nationalization  or  socialization 
of  the  monopolized  industries. 

When  there  was  talk  in  Prussia  of  the  pur- 
chase of  the  mines  by  the  government,  he  devoted 
several  articles  in  the  Neue  Zeit  to  opposing  such 
propositions. 

Nevertheless,  neither  in  his  writings  nor  in 
those  of  Marx  and  Engels  do  we  find  that  tren- 
chant formula  that  we  have  quoted  from  Guesde : 
"The  revolution  first,  .  .  .  the  public  serv- 
ices afterwards." 

If  such  a  program  of  socialist  action  were  to 
be  taken  literally,  it  would  be  necessary,  so  long 
as  the  proletariat  is  not  in  power,  for  its  delegates 
in  the  legislative  assemblies  to  declare  against 
state  ownership,  even  in  the  democratic  countries 
where  the  autonomy  of  the  public  services  as 
against  the  State-power  is  not  an  empty  word. 
And  in  fact,  if  practice  has  tempered  this  rigor 
to  some  extent,  there  is  nevertheless  an  unde- 
niable tendency,  in  Guesde  and  those  who  follow 
him,  to  be  hostile  to  the  extension  of  government 
industries,  within  the  present  State. 


SOCIALISM  AND  STATE  INDUSTRIES  209 

It  will  be  remembered,  for  example,  that,  con- 
trary to  the  opinion  of  the  majority  of  the  parlia- 
mentary socialists,  they  opposed  energetically  the 
redemption  of  the  West  State  Railway. 

We  thus  confront  not  a  purely  theoretical  con- 
troversy, but  a  divergence  of  views  which  shows 
itself,  and  may  show  itself  at  any  moment,  in  the 
field  of  immediate  action.  Let  us  then  sum  up 
the  arguments  which  Guesde  formerly  used 
against  the  "possibilists,"  and  see  what  validity 
they  have,  when  invoked  against  the  policy  of 
extension  of  the  "public  services"  under  their 
present  form. 

Guesde  maintained,  it  will  be  remembered : 

/.  That  the  nationalization  of  private  indus- 
tries by  the  capitalist  State  is  not  socialism,  and 
has  nothing  to  do  zvith  socialism. 

2.  That  far  from  simplifying  the  expropriat- 
ing task  of  the  proletariat,  by  already  realising  a 
certain  amount  of  public  property,  it  presents 
only  dangers  for  the  zvorkers,  because  it  fortifies 
the  enemy,  the  capitalist  class,  and  enfeebles 
the  working  class,  the  movement  of  which  it 
paralyses. 

On  the  first  of  these  affirmations,  we  agree. 
Even  that  one  of  all  the  State  industries  which 
differs  most  from  the  type  of  police-State  admin- 
istrations, that  of  the  federal  railways  of  Switzer- 


210  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

land,  is  much  more  nearly  related  to  a  great 
capitalist  corporation  than  to  the  co-operative 
organization  of  production  under  a  socialist 
regime. 

From  the  point  of  view  of  distribution,  it  is 
founded  on  the  wage  system,  save  for  the  rule 
of  paying  its  laborers  a  little  better  wages  than 
those  of  private  industry. 

From  the  point  of  view  of  the  organization  of 
labor,  it  differs  not  at  all,  or  slightly,  from  capital- 
ist enterprises ;  the  workers  have  no  part  in  the 
management ;  they  have  no  voice  in  the  control ; 
they  are  not  represented  in  the  general  directo- 
rate nor  in  the  council  of  administration;  and  if 
they  are  allowed  the  right  to  organize  freely, 
their  unions  have  no  more  favorable  position  as 
against  the  managers  and  directors  of  the  admin- 
istration than  the  unions  of  private  industry  have 
as  against  the  other  employers. 

But,  it  will  doubtless  be  said,  from  the  point 
of  view  of  property  at  least,  the  national  railway 
administration  is  collectivism,  since  the  system 
and  the  material  belong  to  the  "nation." 

The  truth  is  that  they  belong  to  the  State,  and 
that  this  State  is,  despite  its  democratic  forms,  a 
class  State. 

Now,  as  Guesde  points  out,  "the  private  indus- 
tries, when  taken  over  by  the  present  State,  do 


SOCIALISM  AND  STATE  INDUSTRIES  211 

not  lose  their  character  of  capitalist  property, 
that  is  to  say  of  property  from  which  the  working 
class  is  excluded.  From  being  the  property  of 
such  and  such  a  capitalist,  that  is  to  say  from 
being  property  benefiting  exclusively  x  or  y,  they 
become  property  of  the  whole  capitalist  class, 
without  distinction  of  x,  y  or  z.  But  that  is  all ! 
As  for  the  proletarian  collectivity,  as  for  the 
society  of  wage-workers,  it  profits  no  more  from 
statized  machinery  than  from  individualized 
machinery."  1 

We  can  not  fail  to  note,  however,  that  here 
again  certain  affirmations  if  made  too  absolutely 
might  become  incorrect.  Between  the  capitalist 
State,  founded  on  the  exclusive  domination  of 
one  class,  and  the  proletarian  State,  aiming  at 
the  abolition  of  classes,  there  are  many  inter- 
mediate stages. 

One  could  not  refuse  to  see,  without  closing 
his  eyes  to  reality,  that  if  the  fiscal  property  of 
the  Prussian  State  or  of  the  Empire  of  the  late 
Czar  is  a  "property  from  which  the  working  class 
is  excluded,"  the  postal,  telegraph  and  railway 
systems  in  Switzerland  and  France,  as  well  as 
most  municipal  industries,  can  not  be  considered 
purely  and  simply  as  "property  of  the  whole 
capitalist  class."    They  certainly  belong  to  a  class 

1  Socialisme  et  Services  publics,  p.  30. 


212  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

State,  but  within  that  class  State,  or  upon  that 
class  State,  the  proletariat  has  an  influence  which 
it  does  not  possess  in  more  backward  countries. 

Moreover  these  are,  above  all,  questions  of 
definition. 

It  is  not  so  with  this  other  question,  of  vital 
importance  as  regards  socialist  policy :  the  ques- 
tion of  determining  whether  the  extension  of 
State  industries  is  of  a  nature  to  facilitate,  or 
rather,  on  the  contrary,  to  make  more  difficult 
the  transformation  of  capitalist  property,  state 
or  individual  into  social  property. 

According  as  one  adopts,  in  fact,  one  or  the 
other  of  these  contradictory  opinions,  one  should 
favor  or  oppose  the  statization  of  certain  indus- 
tries, railroads,  mines,  etc.,  while  the  structure  of 
present  society  remains.     ' 

The  socialists  hostile  to  any  statization  under 
the  capitalist  system  raise  two  principal  argu- 
ments :  on  the  one  hand,  the  existence  of  the 
public  services  fortifies  the  enemy,  by  diminish- 
ing the  liberties  of  the  working  class ;  on  the 
other  hand  it  increases  directly  the  bourgeois 
forces,  because  "the  more  industries  the  bour- 
geois State  includes,  the  more  individuals  it  at- 
taches to  itself  and  interests  in  its  preservation, 
even  including  only  those  who,  favored  by  better 


SOCIALISM   AND  STATE  INDUSTRIES  213 

pay  or  a  higher  station,  must  fear  any  change  as 
a  leap  into  the  unknown." 

That  those  are  very  strong  arguments  against 
statization,  no  one  denies.  They  are  even  so 
strong  that  one  must  approve  the  social  democ- 
racy for  being  hostile  to  them  in  countries  where 
the  State,  the  police-State,  has  remained  what  it 
was  at  the  epoch  when  Marx  and  Engels  wrote 
the  Communist  Manifesto.  But  these  arguments 
become  less  decisive  in  democratic  countries 
where  the  working  class  is  no  longer,  politically, 
a  negligible  quantity,  and  where  the  State,  organ 
of  management,  is  differentiated  more  or  less 
completely  from  the  State,  organ  of  authority. 

This  enables  us  to  understand  that  in  France, 
in  Italy,  in  England,  in  Switzerland  and  in  Bel- 
gium, for  example,  the  socialists  or  a  majority  of 
the  socialists  are  more  favorable  to  the  statization 
(or  the  municipalization)  of  certain  private  in- 
dustries. 

Does  this  mean  that  they  are  ignorant  of  the 
disadvantages  or  the  dangers  that  statization  may 
offer?  Not  at  all.  No  one  denies,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  that  if  the  employees  and  laborers  of  the 
State  enjoy  (from  the  point  of  view  of  security 
of  employment,  for  example)  certain  advantages 
that  the  workers  in  private  industry  do  not  have, 
these  very  advantages  generally  result  in  making 


214  SOCIALISM   VERSUS  THE  STATE 

them  more  timorous,  more  pliable  in  their  rela- 
tions with  the  government,  more  inclined  to 
expect  from  favor,  and  not  from  their  own  effort, 
any  new  improvements  in  their  condition. 

On  the  other  hand,  and  for  the  same  reasons, 
their  freedom  to  organize,  in  most  countries,  is 
singularly  limited.  The  authorities  bargain  with 
them  over  the  right  of  association ;  they  are 
denied  the  right  to  strike ;  they  are  called  to  the 
colors,  in  case  of  a  dispute,  to  compel  them  to 
work;  all  the  weight  of  the  State-power  hangs 
over  them. 

Under  these  conditions*  one  may  ask  how  it  is 
possible  that,  in  spite  of  everything,  most  social- 
ists continue  to  demand,  even  now,  extensions  of 
the  domain  of  the  State. 

To  understand  such  an  attitude,  it  must,  first 
of  all,  be  kept  in  sight  that  if  the  State  workers 
are  less  free  and  less  independent  in  their  bearing 
than  the  workers  of  private  industry,  or  rather 
than  most  of  the  workers  of  private  industry, 
that  depends  much  more  on  the  nature  of  their 
work  and  the  services  that  they  render,  than  on 
the  fact  that  they  have  the  State  for  an  employer. 

In  France,  for  example,  where  the  laborers  of 
the  railway  companies  enjoy  (as  regards  pensions 
and  stability  of  employment)  the  same  advan- 
tages as  those  of  the  State,  we  do  not  observe 


SOCIALISM   AND  STATE  INDUSTRIES  215 

that  they  are  more  independent  in  their  bearing. 
It  is  rather  the  contrary  that  is  true.  And 
in  a  general  way,  in  all  great  enterprises  whose 
structure  approaches,  by  its  concentration  and 
bureaucratization,  that  of  the  State  enterprises, 
the  psychology  of  the  workers  tends  to  be  the 
same. 

On  the  other  hand,  when  it  is  a  question  of 
"public  services,"  such  as  railroads,  the  capitalist 
State,  even  when  it  is  not  at  the  same  time  the 
employing  State,  resorts  to  the  same  methods 
against  the  company  workers  who  go  on  strike 
as  against  its  own  workers. 

In  both  cases  they  invoke  the  necessities  of 
public  safety,  and  M.  Briand,  on  occasion,  ap- 
plied military  discipline  to  the  workers  of  the 
Northern  Railway  Company  just  as  he  did  to 
those  of  the  Western  State  Railway. 

From  the  view-point  of  disadvantages  there- 
fore, it  seems  that  there  would  be  no  great  differ- 
ence between  enterprises  of  the  same  nature, 
according  to  whether  they  are  operated  by  the 
State  or  by  capitalist  companies.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  (in  democratic  countries,  be  it  under- 
stood) the  employees  of  the  State  have,  for 
improving  their  conditions  of  work  and  of  living, 
certain  means  of  action  that  the  workers  of  pri- 
vate industry  have  not,  at  least  not  to  the  same 


216  SOCIALISM   VERSUS  THE  STATE 

degree.  Far  more  easily  than  the  latter  they 
may,  by  their  political  action,  obtain  a  minimum 
wage,  more  complete  insurance  institutions,  etc. 
Let  us  hasten  to  add  however  that  here  again 
the  difference  is  not  great,  when  we  compare  the 
state  industries  with  others  like  the  coal  and  the 
textile  industry,  the  workers  in  which,  very 
numerous  and  concentrated  in  certain  regions, 
have  at  their  disposal  from  this  fact  a  consid- 
erable political  influence.  But  if,  to  be  exact, 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  workers,  the 
advantages  and  disadvantages  of  State  exploita- 
tion tend  to  balance  each  other,  it  is  necessary  to 
take  account  of  the  following  considerations  in 
favor  of  operation  by  the  State : 

1.  Advantages  which,  in  certain  industries  at 
least,  it  presents  from  the  point  of  view  of  the 
general  interest; 

2.  Transformations,  ever  more  radical,  which 
can  and  must  be  accomplished,  in  the  direction 
of  separation  between  the  State,  organ  of  au- 
thority, and  the  State,  organ  of  management. 

Let  us  suppose,  for  example,  that,  the  property 
in  the  mines  of  Sarre  remaining  collective,  the 
Prussian  State  ceases  to  be  a  class  State  on  which 
the  proletariat  exercises  no  influence.  Its  insti- 
tutions are  democratized.  The  working  class, 
without  being  ready  as  yet  to  take  political  power, 


SOCIALISM   AND  STATE  INDUSTRIES  217 

exercises  an  increasing  pressure  on  the  Govern- 
ment. 

Is  it  not  evident  that  fundamental  reforms 
might  be  and  ought  to  be  introduced  into  the 
organization  of  the  industry? 

1.  The  operation  would  cease  to  have  a  fiscal 
character,  and  it  would  be  the  same  with  the 
other  public  industries,  except  those  adapted  by 
their  nature  to  provide  profits  for  the  Treasury, 
like  the  monopolies  of  alcohol  and  tobacco. 

2.  The  industrial  State  ought,  far  more  than 
today,  to  have  an  organization  quite  apart  from 
the  government-State ;  centralization  is  one  of  the 
characteristics  of  authority;  decentralization  is 
one  of  the  necessities  of  management. 

3.  Industrial  managemnet  would  no  longer 
belong  to  functionaries  delegated  by  the  Govern- 
ment, and  having  wage-workers  under  their 
orders,  but  to  the  entire  body  of  workers,  organ- 
ized into  public  corporations. 

Certainly,  before  these  radical  transformations 
will  take  effect  or  even  can  take  effect,  time  and 
efforts  will  be  needed. 

But  from  today  the  whole  labor  movement, 
political  as  well  as  economic,  tends  to  this  final 
result. 

The  war  has  interrupted  this  movement.     It 


218  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

will  be  resumed  with  greater  force  when  the  war 
is  over. 

Already,  in  all  the  countries  where  universal 
suffrage  does  not  yet  exist,  the  people  are  de- 
manding it  as  the  price  of  their  sacrifices,  and 
are  thus  preparing  for  the  conquest  of  the  public 
powers  by  the  proletariat. 

On  the  day  after  the  war  we  shall  witness  a 
powerful  effort  of  the  workers  to  take  away  from 
the  financial  powers  the  monopolies  to  which  the 
war  will  have  given  birth ;  and  thus  we  shall 
march  toward  the  collective  appropriation  of  the 
principal  means  of  production  and  exchange. 

Industrial  union  activity,  rendered  more  intense 
by  the  after-war  difficulties,  will  create,  within 
the  entrails  of  bourgeois  society,  the  organs  of 
the  future  society,  the  public  corporations  which 
will  operate  the  socialized  industries  of  the 
future. 

Finally,  the  resumption  of  international  rela- 
tions among  the  workers,  the  development  of 
the  society  of  nations,  the  formidable  reaction 
of  peace  against  war,  will  tend  progressively  to 
restrain  the  functions  of  the  Government-State, 
at  the  same  time  that  the  progress  of  collectivism 
will  multiply  the  functions  of  the  industrial  State. 

Thus,  little  by  little,  through  an  immense  addi- 
tion of  individual  and  collective  efforts,  the  way 


SOCIALISM   AND  STATE  INDUSTRIES  219 

is  preparing  for  the  passage  from  present  society 
to  the  new  system,  which  a  pioneer  comrade, 
Victor  Considerant,  described  long  ago  in  his 
"Destinee  sociale" : 

"The  States  thus  transformed  will  be  nothing 
but  managing  committees,  named  by  associations 
more  or  less  numerous,  and  invested  with  the 
confidence  of  those  who  have  chosen  them.  There 
is  no  more  government  having  soldiers  and  police- 
men under  its  orders ;  there  is  no  more  despotism 
nor  usurpation  possible, — something  that  nations 
will  always  have  to  fear,  so  long  as  they  are 
obliged  to  manufacture  sabres." 


CHAPTER  V 

SOCIALISM    AND   STATISM 

As  we  reach  the  close  of  this  study,  we  believe 
we  have  shown  what  differentiates  statism  from 
socialism. 

Statism  is  the  organisation  of  social  labor  by 
the  State,  by  the  Government.  Socialism  is  the 
organisation  of  social  labor  by  the  workers, 
grouped  in  public  associations. 

Of  these  two  systems,  the  realization  of  the 
former  would  be  conceivable  without  any  essen- 
tial change  in  the  present  relations  between  the 
classes. 

Thus  in  the  industries  or  in  the  countries  most 
advanced  in  capitalist  concentration,  we  see  cap- 
tains of  industry  or  statesmen,  whom  no  one 
would  suspect  of  any  weakness  for  socialism, 
admit  that  at  a  given  moment  the  statization  of 
the  principal  industries  is  coming. 

Read  again,  for  example,  the  very  interesting 
interview  with  M.  Kirdorf,  president  of  the  Coal 
Syndicate,  in  "Rhin  et  Westphalie"  of  Huret. 

As  M.  Kirdorf  pleaded  for  the  monopoly, 
maintaining  that  it  had  to  be  organized  under 

220 


SOCIALISM  AND  STATISM  221 

penalty  of  ruin  for  the  coal  industry,  his  inter- 
viewer suggested  that  an  intermediate  solution 
remained  possible ;  the  State,  in  view  of  the 
alternative  of  monopoly  or  of  the  ruin  of  the 
mining  industry,  putting  its  hands  on  the  con- 
cessions and  operating  them  on  its  own  account. 
And  M.  Kirdorf  replied : 

That  is  just  what  it  is  trying  to  do!  It  already 
possesses  coal  mines  in  the  basin  of  the  Saar  and  in 
Silesia,  and  even  rich  potash  mines.  It  thinks  only 
of  buying  new  ones.  M.  Thyssen  has  sold  to  it  in 
our  basin  his  concessions  of  Gladbach  and  Waltrop 
which  produce  800,000  to  900,000  tons,  and  in  a  few 
years  the  Prussian  State  may  be  a  part  of  the  Syndi- 
cate. Understand,  its  aim  is,  in  the  first  place,  to 
make  money,  for  the  mines  pay.  But  it  is  also 
interested  in  controlling  prices,  and  in  using  its 
influence,  if  opportunity  arises,  to  lower  them,  to  the 
government's  advantage.  It  is  thus  that  the  Prussian 
State,  essentially  conservative,  puts  itself  into  oppo- 
sition to  the  national  capitalism. 

M.  Kirdorf  again  states  this  tendency,  seeming 
to  find  it  quite  natural,  but  not  approving  it. 
Others  go  farther. 

At  the  time  when  Mr.  Taft  was  President  of 

the  United  States,  an  editor  of  the  Neue  Freie 

Presse,  who  had  interviewed  him  on  the  question 

of  state  industries,  summarized  his  opinion  as 

follows : 

He  is  convinced  that,  if  limits  are  not  set  to  the 
trusts,  the  American  tendency  would  everywhere 
create  complete  monopolies,  whose  economic  power 


222  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

would  inevitably  be  so  prodigious  that  the  acquisition 
of  the  enterprises  by  the  State,  and  consequently 
socialism,  would  be  the  necessary  result.1 

Such  prophecies,  which  the  socialist  press 
reproduced  with  a  little  too  much  complaisance, 
count  for  much  in  the  strange  idea  that  many- 
people,  otherwise  well  intentioned,  construct  for 
themselves  of  what  the  socialist  regime  would  be. 

It  is  indeed  evident  that  if  socialism  were 
merely  the  taking  over  by  the  State,  under  its 
present  form,  of  the  monopolized  industries,  such 
a  system  would  have  for  the  very  condition  of 
its  existence  a  formidable  concentration  of  gov- 
ernmental power. 

In  a  lecture  at  Sion  College,  February  4,  1914, 

on    the    "principal    currents    of    contemporary 

thought,"  the  Dean  of  St.  Pauls,  the  Rev.  Mr. 

Inge,  said : 

Socialism  may  be  conceived  as  an  omnipotent 
bureaucracy,  directed  by  a  small  number  of  capable 
men,  of  the  type  of  Napoleon  or  Pierpont  Morgan; 
and  such  men  are  accustomed  to  high  pay  for  their 
services.  A  socialist  government  might  be  powerful 
and  prosperous,  but  it  would  have  to  rule  with  a 
rod  of  iron. 

Is  it  necessary  to  repeat  that  if  this  were 
socialism,  it  would  have  no  more  energetic  oppo- 
nents than  the  socialists  themselves? 


iHugo   Muensterberg,   Neue   Frele   Presse,   November   19, 
1911. 


SOCIALISM  AND  STATISM  223 

Statism  thus  generalized  would  maintain  the 
wage  system,  would  maintain  the  authority  of 
the  employer,  would  maintain  the  relations  of 
subordination  existing  between  the  ruling  class 
and  the  working  class. 

Socialism,  on  the  contrary,  implies  a  radical, 
essential  change  in  these  relations. 

It  is  not  a  question  of  replacing  private  capital- 
ism by  State  capitalism,  but  private  capitalism 
and  State  capitalism  by  the  co-operation  of  the 
workers,  masters  of  the  means  of  production  and 
exchange.  And  such  a  transformation,  which 
suppresses  the  distinction  between  capitalists  and 
workers,  is  nothing  less  than  a  revolution. 

This  revolution,  the  social  revolution,  which 
the  Manifesto  compares  to  a  geological  upheaval, 
to  a  rising  of  the  lower  strata  of  society,  over- 
throwing all  the  present  legal  and  political  super- 
structures, may  be  sudden  or  slow,  may  take  the 
classic  forms  of  previous  revolutions  or,  which 
is  more  probable,  may  decompose  itself  into  a 
long  series  of  partial  struggles,  more  or  less 
bitter,  more  or  less  violent ;  but  on  any  hypothesis, 
the  day  when  this  shall  be  accomplished,  there 
will  no  longer  be  anything  in  common  between 
the  capitalist  State,  instrument  of  the  rule  of 
the  possessing  classes,  and  the  new   State,  the 


224  SOCIALISM  VERSUS  THE  STATE 

socialist  State,  organ  of  management  of  the 
common  interests. 

Today,  the  State  is  above  all  a  power  of 
coercion,  of  domination,  exercising  incidentally 
certain  economic  or  social  attributes.  In  a  social- 
ist regime,  on  the  contrary,  these  attributes  would 
become  the  principal  part  of  its  activity.  It 
would  cease  to  dominate  the  workers.  It  would 
emanate  directly  from  them.  It  would  become 
theirs.  It  would  answer  to  this  famous  definition 
of  St.-Simon : 

"The  aim  of  the  French  State  is  to  realize  the 
well-being  of  its  members,  by  peaceful  works  of 
real  utility." 

This  passage  from  the  bourgeois  State,  tran- 
scendent, to  the  socialist  State,  immanent,  has 
nowhere  been  better  grasped  and  defined  than 
by  Anatole  France,  in  a  well-known  passage  of 
"Monsieur  Bergeret  a  Paris": 

"'What  is  the  State?'  asked  M.  Bergeret  of 
his  daughter,  whose  comprehensive  scholarship 
has  marvelously  assimilated  the  quintessence  of 
socialist  thought. 

"Mile.  Bergeret  quickly  replied : 

"  'The  State,  Father,  is  a  woeful,  ungracious 
man  seated  behind  a  little  window.  You  under- 
stand that  we  are  not  anxious  to  rob  ourselves 
for  him.' 


SOCIALISM  AND  STATISM  225 

"  'I  understand,'  answered  M.  Bergeret,  smil- 
ing.    'I  am  always  inclined  to  understand,  and  I 
have  wasted  precious  energies  at  it.     I  discover 
at  last  that  there  is  great  force  in  not  under- 
standing.   Sometimes  that  enables  one  to  conquer 
the  world.     If  Napoleon  had  been  as  intelligent 
as  Spinoza,  he  would  have  written  four  volumes 
in  a  garret.     I  understand.     But  this  ungracious 
and  woeful  man  seated  behind  a  little  window, — 
you  entrust  your  letters  to  him,  Pauline,  that  you 
would  not  entrust  to  the  Tricoche  Agency.     He 
manages    part   of   your   property,    and    not   the 
smallest  nor  the  least  valuable  part.     His  face 
looks  morose  to  you.    But  when  he  is  everything, 
he  will  no  longer  be  anything.     Or  rather,  he 
will  be  nothing  but  ourselves.    Annihilated  by  his 
universality,  he  will  cease  to  appear  meddlesome. 
One  is  no  longer  bad,  my  daughter,  when  one  is 
no  longer  anybody.    The  unpleasant  thing  about 
him  today  is  that  he  goes  about  scraping  and 
filing,  biting  little  out  of  the  fat  and  much  out  of 
the  lean.     That  makes  him  unendurable.     He  is 
greedy.     He  has  needs.     In  my  republic,  he  will 
be  without  desires,  like  the  gods.     He  will  have 
everything  and  he  will  have  nothing.     We  shall 
not   feel   him,   since   he   will   be   shaped   to   us, 
indistinct  from  us.    He  will  be  as  if  he  were  not. 
And  when  you  think  that  I  am  sacrificing  indi- 


226  SOCIALISM   VERSUS  THE  STATE 

viduals  to  the  State,  life  to  an  abstraction,  it  is 
on  the  contrary  the  abstraction  that  I  am  sub- 
ordinating to  reality ;  I  am  suppressing  the  State 
by  identifying  it  with  all  social  activity.'  " 

We  find  in  these  lines,  so  admirably  con- 
densed, the  very  thought  of  Marx  and  Engels. 

In  the  economic  order,  as  in  the  political  order, 
and,  in  a  general  way,  in  all  spheres  of  collective 
life,  socialism  is  not  pro-state,  but  anti-state.  It 
strives  to  bring  about  the  separation  of  the  State 
from  labor,  as  from  religion  and  from  the  family. 
It  desires,  as  the  final  term  of  this  triple  evolu- 
tion, the  State-power,  the  State  as  organ  of 
authority,  to  be  reduced,  if  not  to  nothing,  at 
least  to  secondary  functions  of  supervision  and 
police.  Family  life  escapes  from  its  control.  The 
churches  are  no  more  than  free  associations 
grouping  citizens  according  to  their  philosophic 
or  religious  affinities.  The  great  co-operative  of 
social  labor,  arrived  at  the  fullness  of  its  au- 
tonomy, administers  itself,  free  from  all  govern- 
mental interference. 

The  realization  of  this  ideal  may  be  more  or 
less  complete  and  more  or  less  near.  But,  under 
penalty  of  dangerous  deviations,  the  proletariat 
must  be  penetrated  with  it. 

We  have  put  ourselves  on  guard  against  the 
excesses  of  a  sterile  doctrinalism,  which  would 


SOCIALISM  AND  STATISM  227 

make  us  reject  any  State  intervention,  any  resort 
to  the  State,  even  to  prepare  for  discarding  it. 

We  should  guard  ourselves  far  more  against 
the  contrary  tendency,  which  would  see  in  the 
extension  of  State  functions,  in  the  grasp  of  the 
Government  upon  the  principal  industries,  the 
final  form  and  the  triumph  of  socialism. 

In  an  interesting  letter  which  Marx  wrote 
in  1873,  to  oppose  the  ideas  of  Bakunin,  he 
ridiculed  with  reason  those  anti-statists  who,  for 
fear  of  consolidating  the  bourgeois  State,  avoid 
all  practical  activity :  to  limit  the  hours  of  labor 
is  compromising  with  the  exploiters ;  to  strike 
for  higher  wages  is  to  recognize  the  wage  system ; 
to  demand  that  the  State,  whose  progress  rests  on 
the  exploitation  of  the  working  class,  should  fur- 
nish elementary  education  to  the  children  of 
laborers  or  appoint  factory  inspectors,  is  to 
fortify  it  instead  of  dissolving  and  destroying  it. 

But  it  is  not  against  such  dangers  that  warnings 
are  needed  today.  The  socialists  are  in  the  midst 
of  political  and  social  activity.  They  act  on  the 
State  to  constrain  it  to  enact  reforms.  They  are 
demanding,  even  now,  extensions  of  its  domain. 
They  are  striving  to  conquer  it,  to  turn  its 
coercive  force  against  capitalism.  The  all- 
important  thing  is  that  this  action  for  the  con- 
quest or  for  the  utilisation  of  the  State  does  not 


228  SOCIALISM   VERSUS  THE  STATE 

prevent  the  struggle  against  the  State,  in  so  far 
as  it  is  an  organ  of  class  rule. 

It  is  not  enough  to  say  that  it  shall  be  abolished 
after  being  conquered,  it  is  necessary  to  prepare 
for  that  abolition,  in  all  spheres  of  social  life, 
striving  to  realize,  as  against  it,  the  autonomy, 
ever  more  complete,  of  individuals  or  collectivi- 
ties. 

Let  the  workers,  to  improve  their  condition, 
accept  or  demand  from  the  bourgeois  State  a 
minimum  of  protection.  Let  them  prefer  to 
capitalist  monopolies  the  State  industries,  which 
take  account,  at  least  to  a  certain  extent,  of  the 
general  interest.  Let  them  strive  to  maintain, 
after  the  war,  the  control  that  will  have  been 
established  over  the  principal  branches  of  pro- 
duction and  exchange.  We  are  with  them.  We 
admit  all  the  value  of  these  necessary  reforms. 
But  it  is  impossible  to  repeat  often  enough,  at 
the  moment  when,  everywhere,  the  progress  of 
statism  during  the  war  is  represented  as  a  partial 
realization  of  collectivism, — that  these  reforms, 
to  be  demanded  above  all  by  the  socialists,  are 
not,  properly  speaking,  socialism. 

They  may  open  the  way  to  it.  They  may  be 
the  preparation  and  the  preliminary  condition  of 
the  system  of  the  future.  But  they  might,  if 
we  do  not  take  care,  result  in  a  disastrous  lessen- 


SOCIALISM  AND  STATISM  229 

ing  of  the  liberties  of  the  individual,  by  a  formid- 
able development  of  the  State-power,  still  in  the 
hands  of  the  master  classes. 

So  we  should  never  forget  that,  even  if  the 
principal  industries  came  to  be  incorporated  in 
the  collective  domain,  the  system  of  the  future 
would  still  have  to  be  created  by  the  transforma- 
tion of  the  State,  and  that  this  system  can  only 
be  created  by  a  militant  proletariat,  penetrated  to 
the  marrow  with  the  injustice  of  present  social 
conditions,  and  resolved  to  conquer,  by  main 
force,  well-being  and  liberty. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


•78 


PSD  2338  9/77 


«. 


V 


3  1158  00303  6026 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    000  397  578 


SOUTHERN  BRANCH, 

•UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA, 

LIBRARY, 

U-OS  ANGELES,  CALIF. 


